HOME |
DINING |
MOVIES |
LIVE SHOWS |
ARTS |
UPCOMING EVENTS
ARCHIVES |
ABOUT |
ADVERTISE |
CONTACT |
DISTRIBUTION
entertaining u newspaper: your weekly guide to entertainment
<<
Seen, Heard, Noted...
|
Main
|
Ed Speleers: Eragon (interview)
>>
|
|
|
by erin thursby scopes1925@msn.com
C Rated PG 103 min.
I expected clichés as a matter of course in Eragon, because it’s a fantasy movie, but it felt as though Hollywood digested the book, sucked out the marrow and presented it to us with only the clichés intact. Clichés in movies actually aren’t that bad, provided that they are given weight by their context and there aren’t too many of them. Context is what the movie continually lacked. As adaptations go, it was weak enough that people watching it who hadn’t read the book had the distinct impression that something was missing in a lot of places. A great adaptation doesn’t have that problem, and it is possible to adapt a story and still keep the essence of what makes it great. The screen version of The Godfather left out plenty of what was in the book, but no-one felt cheated who hadn’t read the book. In the fantasy genre, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone did the same, leaving out much, but keeping essential elements to help you understand the characters and their motives.
I watched as the actors in the movie worked so hard, with so little. They couldn’t entirely save it, not even with Jeremy Irons hitting every mark and the brilliant charm of the young Edward Speleers as Eragon. It’s a well-cast group, but the plot, like the dragon in it, suddenly grows at a remarkable rate of speed, with very little explanation. Characters are introduced and thrust headlong into danger, but we are hard-pressed to care about them because they aren’t given the time to develop or form anything other than a superficial relationship with one another. The fault lies not in the actors on this point but in the script. It felt more like a series of plot points that had to be covered in a certain period of time, than it did a character-driven story. At only about an hour and 40 minutes, the run time of this movie is short. This choice doesn’t make sense to me, because lovers of the fantasy genre have shown that they have patience and will sit through a movie for more than two hours, provided it’s a quality film.
One relationship that gets brief development is the one between Roran and Eragon. Their rough-and-tumble play establishes them as brothers, even if the scene was just meant to show that Eragon has some previous experience fighting. There aren’t enough moments like these written in the script, in which you come away with a sense of what characters mean to each other and not just what they represent in the story. That moment between Roran and Eragon is thrown away, as we never see Roran again for the majority of the movie.
As Murtaugh, Garrett Hedlund does a great job of portraying a good-hearted rogue, who hates the circumstances of his birth. He appears out of nowhere and his relationship with Eragon isn’t established very well in script.
Fans of the book might decry the changes made to the character of Brom, but in the context of the film, those changes work, with Jeremy Irons playing the part brilliantly. He’s a man of little hope who has lost much. He mentors Eragon in the ways of combat, fighting and dragon care. Irons communicates the inner life of Brom through the screen, even playing a hint of jealousy as an ex-rider who no longer has a dragon. Mostly though, you can see that he’s keenly interested in shaping Eragon, the new hope in the fight against King Galbatorix.
Evil in this movie is marked by really long, ragged and black fingernails. You can tell that King Galbatorix is supposed to be more evil than his supernatural henchman Durza because his nails are much longer and way gnarlier. King Galbatorix is played by John Malkovich, in a throne room that screams evil in reds and blacks. Malcovich is bit creepy as the malevolent king but I lost all faith in him as a villain when he sees that Durza has failed in a minor mission and then proceeds to give him a much larger mission. Durza (Robert Carlyle) at least kills those that fail him. How is the King scarier? The director and scriptwriters want us to think he is --hence, the fingernails and the frightful Durza shrinking from the King when Galbatorix is angry.
Eragon wasn’t all bad-- there are fine moments when Eragon flies on the back of the Saphria, the dragon, and also when Saphria first hatches. The CGI baby dragon was incredibly adorable, even as it stalked and killed rats. A few wry, good lines are sprinkled in the dialogue and Eragon’s relationship with his dragon seemed to be one of the most solid in the movie. There’s plenty to entertain kids from about seven to twelve, and the fight scenes are well choreographed. Fantasy fans might do well to wait for the DVD.
|
|
