| "Eragon" is another
one of the many Dungeons & Dragons styled movies in recent years.
It is essentially the cheaper, English version of "Lord of the
Rings". There is a destiny-fulfilling quest and an unlikely
hero. There are dragons and elves and sorcerers... blah, blah,
blah. There is a spectacular landscape, a long journey across
treacherous lands, a final battle sequence, a blossoming romance, a
battle between good and evil -- all the typical bits and pieces that
you'd expect to see. So, can someone please tell me why this film
is that much different than the "LOTR" films? The ingredients
are similar. The acting and dialogue is just as corny and
overly melodramatic. The fantasy territory is almost
identical. The only difference that I can see is that the
"LOTR" series has a billion dollar budget for its effects sequences
and has a more famous source material -- surely that can't be the
only reason? If it is... it seems pretty flimsy to me.
In "Eragon", the lack of a billion dollar budget is offset by the
appearance of Sienna Guillory. Between the two, I'd give the
edge to Sienna Guillory -- one of my favorite young actresses today.
Unfortunately, even she cannot elevate this film above the
silliness.
John Malkovich and Jeremy Irons attempt to add some much needed
weight to the proceedings. It doesn't work. They deliver
the lines as ridiculously as Ian McKellen did as Gandalf
(*snickers*).
The title character is played by Ed Speelers, who is admittedly a
touch better than the effeminate Frodo of Elijah Wood.
Speelers may look a tad too soft for the part, but he has a screen
presence and the powerful voice to pull it off.
Rachel Weisz plays the voice of Saphira the Dragon, the loyal
servant to her dragon rider, Eragon. Together, under the
tutelage of Irons' Brom, they must rescue Princess Arya and save the
Varden against an evil sorcerer. Whatever.
The film is not going to be the massive hit that "LOTR" was
because it doesn't have the star power. It doesn't have the
budget. It doesn't have the marketing campaign. And it
doesn't have the fame of the source material. But,
essentially, this is very familiar and equally goofy material.
I would recommend skipping it entirely unless you are one of those
dweebs who likes to dress up as a hobbit, visit conventions and have
monthly "LOTR" marathons. |
