Plus, they have an automatic double-dip with the DVD release.

This maybe for the best as sad as that is for me to say being a fantasy fan. Eldest had to be worst letdown in history of book sequels I had ever seen and the liberties they would have to take to make functional movie would take alot work. That is coming from someone that loved Eragon as well. May as well nip it bud now.

Let's not forget the closest comparison for this book: The Harry Potter movies were all long-ass. Though checking out these reviews, the running-time is likely one of many problems with the movie that make it a stinker. Looks like Uwe Boll's "Dungeon Seige" may actually turn out to be the better of the 2 holiday season fantasy epics (though better is only used in the relative sense ).

That is fucking laughable.....

My stomach hurts from laughing so hard!!!!!!

is the teaser for Fantastic Four 2 attached to this movie?

I'll tell you what's really awful, that hack Kubrick took IBM, moved each letter back one to get HAL the robot. And he was a stupid robot too, he didn't even have a periscope like R2-D2 does.

The fact that you can't see too many reviews of this movie is not good.

That's actually apocryphal. Kubrick and Clarke came up with HAL independently and didn't notice the IBM connection until viewers pointed it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_9000
Also, HAL wasn't a robot, but the shipboard computer.

It's up to 66 reviews at rottentomatoes, which is equal to the number of reviews for Unaccompanied Minors and on par with The Good German and Dreamgirls:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eragon/

Of course, the number of favorable reviews is still very small, only 10 of those 66 are positive, giving it a 15% freshness rating. The user reviews seem more favorable, with a 41% freshness rating, but that's still not that good.

Oddly enough, the average rating is pretty close among critics and users. Critics give it an average rating of 4.2/10, while users give it an average of 4.4/10.

Sounds like an unpublished writer with a strong fit of jealousy.

It's hard to imagine anything being more dreadful than the Narnia movie.
If Eragon accomplished that, it would at least count for something....
though my guess is it didn't even succeed at out-sucking Narnia .

:sigh:

It's not my fault you used a bad example to try and make a point.

I think he used a perfect example and was being sarcastic.

Unless you think the 1 letter difference between the words "Eragon" and "dragon" is entirely coincidental, then no, he didn't use a good example.

This was one of the blandest looking films I've seen in quite a while. The color palette was dour and dank in many spots, and the daylight scenes weren't all that good either.

Jeremy Irons does his yeoman's best, but can't quite elevate the material, and the guy playing Eragon, Ed Speleers, isn't all that interesting and the director/writers are perfectly okay with just putting him in scenes that just plod along with nary a thought given to time and distance covered by characters in impossibly short spans just to keep the film moving. Robert Carlyle chewed up the scenery, but wasn't all that nefarious as the Shade stooge of the king.

You could tell that many characters got the short-shrift towards the last half hour of the film, minimal character introduction and then the big finale that didn't live up to the build-up.

The dragon herself looked okay in closeups, but the flight sequences have a lot of hazy shots with not much details. It didn't look like state of the art 2006 CGI, more like 1996 CGI.

I give it 1.75 stars, or a grade of C-.

No it wasn't. You're confusing your Kurosawa bigtime.

The point I was trying to make is that making a fuss over how the author came up with the title, rather than reading the book and actually making a reasoned critique makes him look pretty silly IMHO.

I stand by my post.

Except HAL could be a real name that you could come up without the IBM connection, whereas Eragon is just some made-up name that no one could ever come up with outside of saying "Hmmm...what if I replace the D in Dragon with an E..."

Yep, HAL could be a REAL name while Eragon is just some made-up name. That could be what happened. Maybe he just loves the Lord of the Rings and made a play on Aragorn. Either way, the source of a name is a pretty idiotic reason to dismiss a book.

Your alternative suggests that the author is so dense that he didn't realize his title was one letter off from dragon, which in my mind is ten times worse than it being deliberate.

You know not to mention, the book was written by a 15-year old for kids...I dont think he was trying to be the next great American Novelist at this point in his life. Book was a fun read, nothing more nothing less. Movie does look a little hokey, and doent seem to be getting great reviews, which probably has more to do with the screenwriter and the director, not the author.

Which would, in turn, suggest 2001 is completely idiotic due to the accidental connection of HAL to IBM? I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the idea that Eragon is stupid because the name is like Dragon.

The shift from IBM to HAL is much more subtle than the shift from Dragon to Eragon. Especially when you count the number of times "IBM" was written in 2001 vs the number of times "dragon" was written in Eragon.

Can we all just stop fighting and rent Dragonheart, then move on from this stupid movie?