The movie Eragon (which is based on the widely-read fantasy novel with the same title) is in theaters today. I’ve taken the time to compile a listing of reviews, along with a short excerpt and a link to the full article. So far, the critics don’t seem too impressed.
Some of the major ones:
The New York Times (View Full Review):
“Eragon” is what happens when misguided studio executives option a novel written by a teenager (Christopher Paolini) with a head full of Anne McCaffrey and Ursula K. Le Guin. Not full enough, however; this boy-and-his-dragon fantasy set in a land bristling with Tolkienesque nomenclature and earnest British actors is as lacking in fresh ideas as Tim Allen’s manager.
CNN / Associated Press (View Full Review):
This sword-and-sorcery tale loots its plot points and character archetypes from millennia of standard-issue mythology, old and new. It does offer some striking visual effects and a climactic battle of computer-generated combatants that’s rousing enough, even if it looks like outtakes from the epic clash of “The Return of the King.”
BBC (View Full Review):
Jeremy Irons reminiscing on days of yore when “men rode astride magnificent beasts” will probably make grown-up viewers titter but young children shouldn’t mind the cheesy bluster of Eragon.
Twelve others:
Detroit Free Press (View Full Review):
For all the promise of breathing fire and clashing swords, “Eragon” doesn’t generate any real heat.
E! Online (View Full Review):
If a big-budget fantasy movie is halfway decent, it gets its own line of action figures and/or fast food tie-ins. Eragon has none, which should serve as ample warning, if the boy-band look of unknown lead actor Ed Speleers on the poster wasn’t off-putting enough.
The Boston Globe (View Full Review):
The mess that’s been made with all this money is maddening. This isn’t economical moviemaking. It’s a deluxe trailer for “Eragon 2.”
Sfgate.com (View Full Review):
It’s a completely different kind of good, providing an entertaining haven for the oft-overlooked demographic that’s too old for “Happy Feet” and too young for “Black Christmas.”
Guidelive.com (View Full Review):
So now we know what little Christopher Paolini was doing with his time while he was supposedly being home-schooled, and writing the “Inheritance” fantasy novel trilogy. He was watching Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. He was cutting and pasting, the little imp.
Chicago Tribune (View Full Review):
“Eragon” is a bit cheesy, but I rather liked it. It’s sincere cheese. The dragon, Saphira, comes with goo-goo eyes that go beyond imposing and end up looking adorably ridiculous.
The News Tribune (View Full Review):
Whatever qualities made “Eragon” a tween bestseller are missing from this adaptation. The film lacks the simplest kinds of competence. There is no sense of chronology.
The Daily Record (View Full Review):
[...] timeless myths and cinematic clichÂŽs bound together in a shallow story that’s almost – but not quite – compensated for by the visual spectacle.
Reuters / Hollywood Reporter (View Full Review):
Eragon should play well to young audience during the holidays. Then the dragon movie, like the Christmas goose and New Year’s turkey, should vanish rapidly. The 20th Century Fox release might actually soar higher in home video.
Washington Post (View Full Review):
Alas, these great actors and this great dragon revolve around a rather dim young man named Edward Speleers, who appears to be pleasant enough but has the charisma of a smile button, as well as the complexity.
Denver Post (View Full Review):
The fact that my nephew will kill me if I say anything bad about the adolescent fantasy movie “Eragon” should tell you most of what you need to know.
USA Today (View Full Review):
It’s a pleasant enough fantastical adventure, but it does feel naggingly derivative.
Still, fans of the book will no doubt be interested in seeing how the story is brought to the screen. Eragon is moderately diverting escapism that will appeal to fans of the fantasy genre.
