The Pride

Issue date: 1/23/07 Section: Entertainment

Media Credit: Image Courtesy of 20th Century Fox

Lovers of the book will probably be outraged to hear me say this, but "Eragon" wasn't too bad, for a kids' fantasy flick. It's the story of a sixteen-year-old farm boy, played by newcomer Ed Speleers, who finds a mysterious blue stone while hunting in the forest one day. When a baby dragon hatches from the stone, Eragon bonds with the dragon, and our hero becomes a dragon rider.
I planned to read "Eragon" the book before I saw "Eragon" the movie, but there just wasn't enough time. After reading book, I have to admit that "Eragon" is probably the worst film adaptation of a book I've seen since "The Scarlet Letter, " but before reading the book I actually thought the movie was ok. There are some big flaws, but the basic story is interesting and the special effects look pretty good.

What were the big flaws in the movie? It all comes down to this - "Eragon" is a good example of what can go wrong when Hollywood tries to adapt a 700+ page book into a 99 minute movie. The major plot points come and go in a flash, and the characters develop close relationships way too quickly. During the movie, I kept whispering to my son, "That was weird. Did they leave something out there?" To which he would reply, "Yeah, they left a lot out. This movie sucks." My favorite example of this flaw is the way the movie handles the growth of Eragon's dragon, Saphira. Eragon throws the baby Saphira into the air. She takes off flying and in a series of bright flashes is transformed into an adult.

Instant magical best friend! Several other relationships spring to life in a similar fashion throughout the movie. There's Brom, the instant mentor and father figure, played by Jeremy Irons; Arya, the instant love interest, played by Sienna Guillory; and Murtagh, the instant human best friend, played Garrett Hedlund. How, you ask, does Eragon meet these people? Eragon must flee the minions of the evil King Galbatorix, played by John Malkovich in not much more than a cameo, the dragon killer. He travels back and forth (and forth and back) across the vast land of Alagaësia in what seems like mere minutes, making friends and fighting battles along the way.

My second criticism is that Eragon feels like it was written by a teenager, which it was. I don't know anything about Christopher Paolini. However, I was once a teenage fantasy nerd, and this movie is exactly the kind of story I would have written back then. It is so full of all my favorite fantasy elements, that I've developed the fun little theory that Paolini decided to write a story combining all of his favorite authors into one book.
(Disclaimer: I have no idea who Paolini's favorite authors are. I only know who my favorite authors were at age 16, and they're all here). Anne McCafferey has dragons and dragon riders, so "Eragon" has dragons and dragon riders. J. R. R. Tolkien has elves, dwarves, and orcs, so "Eragon" has elves, dwarves, and urgals. Tolkien named his hero Aragorn; Paolini named his Eragon.

Coincidence? Not likely. But plagiarism? Not really. Tolkien and McCaffrey certainly don't have a copyright on elves and dragons. It's just that "Eragon" tastes like fantasy cliché stew. Still, Paolini picked only the best ingredients, so even though it's the same old thing I've eaten again and again, it still tastes good.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools