Film

Well, I've finished reading the book, and I am impressed. The film roughly follows the book, but serious differences are quite apparent. Indeed, characters have been left out of the film that really add value to the story, and frankly I think the character of Murtagh, son of Morzan, was portrayed very poorly by the script writers for the film. Garrett Hedlund did, however, do a sterling job with the script he was given.

The film seems to centre on the animosity between Durza and Eragon, where in the book it centres on the maturing of Eragon from a boy to a man. I think Durza only appeared in three or four of the chapters, and in the book, Murtagh shoots the arrow that disembodies Durza, whereas in the film Eragon shoots it. More than a little artistic licence there!

Finally, whilst in the film, Eragon finishes Durza by forcing Zar'roc through his heart, the way they got to that point is all wrong. In the book, the battle ensues in an antechamber beneath the dragon hold, and if it weren't for the quick thinking of Saphira and Arya, distracting Durza, Eragon wouldn't have stood a chance. Indeed, in the film Eragon appears to come off unscathed where in the book he is mentally and physically tired, and Durza slices a chunk out of Eragon's back with his sword which takes Angela the Witch days to fix, albeit leaving a horrid scar like Murtagh's.

All in all, the book is certainly worth your time. Looking at the Wikipedia entries for the characters of Brom, Murtagh, Eragon, Arya and the like, there seems to be fierce criticism of the writer, Christopher Paolini, that Eragon was portrayed as emotionally immature throughout the book, that the character of Murtagh wasn't developed properly, and that there's no attempt by Murtagh to be independent of Eragon in the first book. Whilst, to a degree I would agree that Murtagh could have been better developed as a character in the first book, he does have a mystery surrounding him throughout the text, and it isn't until they reach the Varden he lets Eragon know that he was a son of the Forsworn. I think the critic making the remarks fails to take into account that, much like Eragon, Murtagh is running from the King Galbatorix, and that in essence they both need to take a similar path so they do it together. Perhaps the reason that Murtagh chooses to be Eragon's "pack horse" is that he feels that being together, and with a dragon and a rider, it will make a stronger team. The other things that we have to bear in mind is that a) It is a booked aimed at children, although I would suggest for 14-18 year olds primarily, and b) Paolini was only 15 or so when he began writing the first book.

I've ordered Eldest, the second in the series as I understand that Murtagh turns out to be Eragon's brother, and Murtagh is won over by Galbatorix in the end. I think that this will be an interesting twist to the plot, particularly as a dragon hatches for Murtagh. Having read profiles of Eragon and Murtagh on wikipedia, I'm a little confused as to whether both Eragon and Murtagh are sons of Morzan, Selena or both. I'm sure the second book will clear it up.

Happy new year by the way!

Much like Stormbreaker, I went out on a limb last week and nipped to the Cinema to watch the "Eragon" film that had been released. The general gist of the film is that a young boy stumbles across a blue stone which turns out to be a dragon's egg and it hatches for him. When a dragon hatches for a human, that human becomes the dragon's rider, which gives the rider magical powers and all of that. Apparently the land in which the young boy, Eragon, lives once had many riders, but the King, Galbatorix, did away with them all and now only he and Eragon are riders that have dragons.

The story is one of a boy growing up, learning skills, and developing his heart and mind. Usually, I would say that this is the normal sort of fantasy tat that you see nowadays, but the film actually touched me as I found myself absorbed into the fantasy world that is Alageasia.

In true style, I went out and got a copy of the book that the film is based upon, and although I haven't finished reading the book, there appears to be more deviations than in the DaVinci Code and Stormbreaker. Examples:

Film: Garrow is found dead at farm. Brom turns up and sets fire to Garrow's body after which Eragon and Brom set off on their travels.

Book: Garrow is found badly injured at the farm and Eragon uses the strength of Saphira to fly him close to Carvahall. He then pulls Garrow into the village where Eragon is taken in by the village healer, and Garrow is tended to by the wife of the Smith, Horst.

Book: Brom and Eragon journey to Terim to find Jeod. Eragon finds his magical powers two towns before getting to Terim.

Film: Jeod doesn't feature in the film, nor does Terim. Eragon finds his magical powers in the first village that he encounters with Brom.

Book: In Terim, Eragon visits a witch who has a werecat. The witch reads Eragon's future, and the werecat passes valuable information to Eragon through his thoughts.

Film: Eragon has his dragon knuckles read by Joss Stone, there is no werecat.

I'm only about a third into the book. I'll keep you posted about other differences as and when I find/remember them.

Have a good New Year!

I saw the trailer for Stormbreaker a couple of months back, and I noted it in my diary as one to watch. I'm not entirely sure what attracted me to the film, but the thought of a fourteen year-old James Bond type character looked so contrived I had to see it to find out whether the format could really work.

Oddly enough, I found myself quite surprised by the finished product. Alex Pettyfer, who plays the main character, Alex Rider, pulls the role off very well. Whilst there are some aspects to the scripts which are indeed bordering tacky - "He's not a child, he's a lethal weapon" being one to note.

The storyline is simple, yet effective. An orphaned child is brough up by his uncle who spends a lot of time away from home because he works for a bank and has to go to lots of meetings. The uncle is in fact an MI6 agent, gets killed in action, and child thinks that there's something strange about the death. Child investigates, reveals truth, and is (under duress) recruited by MI6 to infiltrate villain's lair and stops sneaky plot to destroy the country.

Upon further investigation, the film is an offshoot from a series of books written by Anthony Horowitz, so I purchased the Stormbreaker book, and I'm pleased to report that whilst there's some artistic licence in the film combined with a little deviation from the story, it remains about 80% true to the book. In true sequel style, I've also purchased "Point Blanc" and "Skeleton Key" for further research.

If you have a cold and wet afternoon to spare, go take a look at this one. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

I decided to take Friday off work. I've been feeling a little tired lately, so I thought that now would be a good time to use some of my remaining leave before October, when it 'expires'.

So what does one do on a random day off? First off I headed into town where I dropped my work trousers into the dry cleaners. Then I headed back to my former employer's to meet up with an old friend where we just had a nice chat, and then I drove over to the Cineworld in Greenbridge where I managed to get a matinee seat for the new Stoembreaker movie.

I must admit that I was sceptical of this movie. The format of a kiddie James Bond, a relatively unknown 16 year old actor and a writer's first novel-to-screenplay had all the hallmarks of a flow. HOWEVER I was pleasantly surprised. Alex Pettyfer who plays Alex Rider managed to pull off a young public schoolboy spy very well. Also the stunts and action shots were very well choreographed with Pettyfer actually performing many of the stunts himself.

It's not going to be everyone's film of the month, but if you want a bit of tongue in cheek humour, combined with a bit of action and cameos from Stephen Fry, Robbie Coltrane Ewan McGregor and others, go take a look.

Okay, so Pirates of the Caribbean, The Curse of the Black Pearl was absolutely brilliant. The reason that it was so good was the Jack Sparrow character that Johnny Depp played. Well, back on form, the sequel, Dead Man's Chest was released on Friday, and I hauled my ass to the local Cineworld to check out what all the hype was about.

Well, basically it was a slightly different story, and where there would have been one CGI effect in the first, there were two in the second. All in all, some pretty good entertainment, but I think that at the end of this film, I felt that the format was tired. Sadly, Disney don't feel the same. The cliffhanger at the end left all the hallmarks of a sequel to come. Bugger.

Well, I did decide to go and see United 93 at the cinema, and I have to say that I was impressed. The film approached the subject with delicacy and really captured the feelings of both the hostages on the plane and the hijackers throughout. The hijackers were on a suicide mission so nothing really mattered to them, and the passengers worked out that it was a suicide mission, so they decided to die trying - even though the pilot and co-pilot were dead.

This was a film that brought me to to tears, and yes, it may be too soon, but it does put closure on that particular aspect of 9/11 and gives a little understanding into the brainwashing the hijackers must have gone through.

I'm thinking of going to see United 93 at the cinema this weekend, and I mentioned this at work. It seems that a number of people seem to be against this film, because they think it's too soon after the real event. How soon is too soon? Would it be the same in 10 years time? Or does this put closure on a horrific event? I think I'm going to see it anyway, on the basis that I want to understand more about what happened.