It was much better than any Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings/Narnia movie I've ever seen......in my oppinion.
2007-01-01 12:00:03 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
No wonder it was so terrible.
2007-01-01 12:09:34 · answer #1 · answered by mojo2093@sbcglobal.net 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that the movie was great! Compared to the books, though... He he he, I mean WOW! It's like the ones that made the movie never even read the books!!! Like everything was wrong!!! I don't agree on the ´´better than HP´´ - thing though.
P.S. Christopher Paolini (the author) is 23 years oldnow, but he started to write Eragon when he was 15. D.S.
2007-01-04 17:51:10 · answer #2 · answered by sunny_marika 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Eragon was ok. The author was really 15 years old when he wrote it, and you could tell by reading the books. The idea of the relationship between the dragon and the rider was unique, but otherwise it was pretty typical medevil-dark-lord-tries-to-
take- over-the-world-and-is-saved-by-
brave-young-hero.
In the book, the sentence structure was sort of weird, and it sort of souned like he was trying to make it sound smarter, and the meaning ended up getting lost. I thought it was a pretty good book, but the movie cut out a lot of the parts.
2007-01-01 20:10:50 · answer #3 · answered by laughoutloud22 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I read it, I saw the movie, I loved it. Wouldn't say it was better than Harry Potter though. For me they're on the same level.
The author, Christopher Paolini, was 15 when he wrote the book Eragon. He's in his 20's now.
2007-01-01 20:09:50 · answer #4 · answered by All I can be is me 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He was 17 when the first one was published. The book is basically a combination of Lord of the Rings and Star Wars - with dragons. The kid doesn't have an original thought in his head. But what do you expect from a homeschooled 17 year old.
2007-01-01 20:08:10 · answer #5 · answered by eri 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
YEs, really 15... HArry potter was meant for 8 to 12 year olds, this one is geared towards the teen market..
2007-01-01 20:49:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seen it. It was horrible. The book was good and they ruined it. Author was really 15 when he wrote the book. He's now like 23.
2007-01-01 20:05:01 · answer #7 · answered by Mazlow01 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
no the author was first 15 when he wrote the book then he got much older then it got published.it didnt get published at the age of 15 he first wrote it it got published later.i dont like the movie.i read the second book the worst thing in history so boring.watch underworld and underworld evolution.there cool movies.
2007-01-01 20:07:37 · answer #8 · answered by bloo b 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The movie was good but not great. It should have been longer, then it might have done justice to the book. The book was very well written but not a favorite of mine.
2007-01-01 20:10:49 · answer #9 · answered by Smiles Like She Means It 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I didn't see it but it was rated one of the top 10 worst movies of 2006
2007-01-01 20:03:31 · answer #10 · answered by Valerie Y 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yeah he was fifteen when he wrote it. now he's like into 20's.
2007-01-01 21:44:50 · answer #11 · answered by addqueen23 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋