Balls and Walnuts
more than you ever wanted to know
You will believe a dragon can blow hot air
My son lost his innocence yesterday.
“At first it was like a love-hate thing, but then I just hated it,” he said afterwards, and proceeded to recount all the many ways in which the movie screwed up the book.
Take that chick standing to Eragon‘s left. Would you believe she’s an elf? Notice the lack of pointy ears or funky-colored skin. You could have knocked me over when Jake told me she’s supposed to be an elf.
Look at all those dudes (and the elf chick), posing like it’s a high school football team picture. Ooooh, they’re tough. Too bad Eragon (18-year-old newcomer Edward Speleers, looking like a younger, softer Michael York) has all the stage presence of dragon poo, so that in his scenes with Jeremy Irons, Irons seems to be monologuing. Irons does his best with a script that feels computer-generated; he and uber-evil Durza (Robert Carlyle) are the only watchable foci in an otherwise lukewarm cast.
Yeah, that’s John Malkovich over there on the right, playing the eeeevil King Galbatorix. But it’s a one-note performance and the guy has maybe two minutes of screen time. I liked Malkovich best in Being John Malkovich, incidentally, or perhaps Ripley’s Game. When he’s good, he’s very good. But I’ll never forgive him for his sterile Kurtz in the 1994 television version of Heart of Darkness.
Back to Jake’s loss of innocence. Think about it: his sole prior experience of books translated into movies was the Harry Potter series, which followed the books slavishly, often (IMO) to the detriment of the movies’ flow. I don’t think he’s ever seen one of his favorite books butchered.
Karen read the books, too, and she said the biggest flaw of the film was the lack of character development. Jake agrees. That was obvious even to me, the virgin viewer. Jake disliked that they glossed over Eragon’s magic training, but here are his top three crits:
1. “They completely rewrote the fight between Eragon and Durza. Eragon didn’t get his back injury.”
2. “They completely undermined the Ra-zac. The Ra-zac got killed! They’re not supposed to get killed until their third book! And they completely forgot the Ra-zac’s parents, which are their mounts.” (Eeew. Purge image of me riding either of my parents.) “The Ra-zac are much more powerful in the book. They had the power to put a human into a dreamlike state so they could attack them. The Ra-zacs were black, not green. And they wore cloaks and they could talk. And they could attack in the night.”
3. “They didn’t give Brom’s character enough attention. He was much more interesting.” (“More three dimensional,” says Karen. “And a lot grumpier in the book.”)
Karen adds that in the book, the relationship between Eragon and his dragon, Saphira, had more depth. And there you have it, a family meta-review . . . but I forgot one thing.
My number one crit has to do with the dragon, Saphira. Rachel Weisz is the voice of Saphira.
Mmmm. Rachel Weisz. What was I saying?
Oh, yeah. They could have saved a ton of money by using all of Ms. Weisz, not just her voice. Picture it: a few blue scales around her eyes, a few more down her naked back. Some cool-looking wings or something to explain how she can fly. Forget all that CGI dragon stuff; let Eragon ride Ms. Weisz into the sunset.
Now, that’s a movie I’d see again.
D.
Sorry to hear that the movie wasn’t impressive. I haven’t read Eragon, so I don’t have the book to compare it to…but after watching the trailers, the only thing that really appealed to me in the film was Jeremy Irons. Of course, I watch The Lion King just to listen to him do the voice of Skar. :shrug: Love the voice.
Irons really is the best thing about the movie. And, despite my joking around above, the Saphira effects weren’t bad. Overall, though, the movie was a disappointment.
Rachel Weisz’s voice was the best thing in this dumb film.
Rachel Weisz’s voice was the only hint of good acting this film had.
Rachel Weisz’s voice was the only thing that gave a good performance in this movie.
Despite the three different names above, all three comments came from the same IP. So what gives? Clearly, this isn’t spam; they’re not selling anything and there’s no link. Perhaps some Weisz fanatic wants to convince me of the wonderfulness of her voice?
Weird. Just plain WEIRD.
You get the weirdest spam…
Never read the book and I shan’t be seeing the movie, I suspect. Sad to hear Jake had to be let down like that, but it was bound to happen someday.
Of course, there’s always cases where I’ve preferred the movie to the book, like The Shining and… um… no, that was the only one, I think.
I preferred all three LOTR movies to the book. By a LOT. I know many, many people love Tolkein, but to me it’s like reading syrup.
We did this a while back — movies that beat the books. Let’s see whether I can remember any of ’em.
LOTR, The Shining: a resounding YES to both.
The Ninth Gate: much better than The Club Dumas
Angel Heart: better than Fallen Angel
2001: better than Clarke’s ponderous, impenetrable book.
Hmm. Two Kubrick movies there, which brings to mind A Clockwork Orange. I’ve never read the book, but I’ve heard the movie beats it hands down.
I’m sure I’ll think of others.
The Godfather — there’s another example.
Doug, I actually saw Eragon this weekend (Yes I was in a movie theater, on a Saturday *eeek!*) I’m glad I only paid for a matinee showing, full price and I’d have been greatly disappointed. There are some scenes that deserve a large screen, but…the dialogue! *wretch!* about half-way in, I decided to shut off the brain, and just watch the pretty pictures.
Jeremy Irons was one of the redeeming points in the movie. Jeremy Irons in leather pants was the other redeeming point.
Did you notice the gaping consistency problem, with J.I’s character? He said that going back to rescue the elfgirlprincesswhatever would take five days of hard riding, yet….he was there in time to be wounded. Horses as fast as dragons? Slow dragon? Perhaps some scouting time that they didn’t bother to show? Magic? bah.
Oh, and my big thing, *Sequins!* friggin’ sequins everywhere, where’d they come from? I saw no petroleum industry of any kind. Magic? Perhaps some mystical creature, when fed corn shits sequins? what? (Okay it’s a nitpick, but it’s an annoying thing when you have a medievaloid setting, and the costuming dept goes nuts with stuff like …sequins!)
Oh, and the guys that were with the elfgirlprincesswhatever at the end, their nifty hats? According to the housemate those look exactly like Mongol wedding headdresses. The ones worn by the bride. Makes you wonder about the elves, you know what I mean? wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.
Sorry for the rant, but well, $6.50. I expected more. Especially after seeing such *good* work done on LoTR.
Movies that are better than the book. The Milagro Beanfield War. Definitely.
…i still wanna see it. but perhaps i’ll wait till its on dvd.
I wait until everything’s on DVD.
Two adult tickets + three kid tickets [or] two adult tickets + a babysitter = too damn much money.
I’ll Netflix it when it comes out.
😛
Beard: gotta hand it to you, you know what you like 😉 and no, I hadn’t noticed the sequins! Good pickup. And I love the Mongolian wedding headdresses. Makes me want to see the movie all over again!
Mo, you just have a jones for Redford.
Shaina, you’ve been warned.
Shelbi, understandable. We only go to about three or four movies a year, though.
Book Movies that We Like.
Holes worked.
Cold Comfort Farm definitely worked.
I couldn’t read Eragon. Maybe I should try again and skip the movie. But that Rachel! Yowza.
Gotta love military rates at theaters and kids old enough to babysit their siblings (or, at this point, not to need sitters at all. yay!). 🙂
The younger kid started reading Eragon but put it down & didn’t go back to it, so he undoubtedly wouldn’t be disturbed by changes in the movie, but it all depends on when/if it gets to the AAFES circuit. One of the drawbacks to being over here. I guess they expect us to go see castles or some shit instead of movies. Sheesh.
>>2001: better than Clarke’s ponderous, impenetrable book.
Ponderous? Impenetrable?? Really??? Loved the movie, loved the book, which I actually found much more, um, penetrable.
Trivia fact: The movie isn’t actually an adaptation of the book–they were written concurrently.
In fairness, Jim, I read 2001 when I was a kid. A bright kid, but a kid. I remember thinking it was boring and hard to understand, and I never felt tempted to revisit it. But I don’t know . . . tastes change. As a kid, I really really liked Clarke’s Against the Fall of Night, but when I reread it as an adult, it was BORING and pretentious. Go figure.
Darla, I’m not sure I’d bother with this one.
Kate — Holes I’ve heard of, but Cold Comfort Farm? Don’t know that one 🙂
I saw the movie on vacation….I read the two books…..I tried to enjoy the movie and not think about the books…..My family never read the books and thought the movie was great…..I knew the movie could have been better, yet, I still want to see a sequel. Hope they are filming part two as I type this. As long as you don’t read the book, the movie is wonderful to see, according to my husband and 13 year old son. Since I read the book, I was disappointed.
[…] Truly, though, the hit counter is as lively as ever. And what are most people searching for on Christmas Eve? What inspires them to Christ-like feats of love for their fellow man? A busty, luscious Rachel Weisz (Kosher for Christmas!). Clinical proof that Jennifer Lopez got back. The ever popular Real or Fake? boobs. Sex, in other words. […]