'Lineage'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
I'm pretty sure Blood Diamond beats out Eragon in the shirtless department. I have already read a review of Eragon that bemoaned the film for it's lack of shirtlessness.
I know everybody is saying the film sucked. I know it's A New Hope with dragons. Still the more I hear about it the more I think I'd love it. Is the acting horrible or is it just the writing that sucks?
Is the acting horrible or is it just the writing that sucks?
The acting is pretty horrible, but better writing could have saved at least some of it. (The kid playing Eragon is wretched, but since several of his scenes involve him doing nothing but looking intensely offscreen while he has a telepathic conversation with the dragon, it's hard to blame the actor.)
Eragon is the only character who gets shirtless. Very disappointing.
if you've ever been a 15 year old boy reading Anne McCaffrey and thought "This would be SO AWESOME if it were about ME!" then this is the movie for you.
That's what everything I've ever seen, heard or read about both the book and the movie has me think.
I mean, I'm quite certain the kid writes better than Dan Brown, but his age alone has made me question whether it's worth even trying to read the book. Was there no better manuscript in the slush pile? Honestly? Did you read more than the top two or three on the pile?
It's not that I'm opposed to give young voices a break. Actually, I'm really glad he got it. I just know what kind of fantasy stuff I was coming up with at that age, and the kind of fantasy written by everybody else that age, or with a 17-year-old mentality. It (almost) universally sucks.
The movie was made because the book was popular, not because it was good.
To which I can respond only by looking at Dan Brown again and heaving an exasperated sigh.
Looking at Amazon and Wikipedia, the critical reviews of the book were mixed as far as it being full of fantasy cliches and so forth, but they all seem to agree that he's a talented writer.
I mean, from all I've heard, Dan Brown is a brilliant plotter. My dad like Da Vinci Code, and I was really surprised. I would have thought the kindergardenish sentence construction would have put him off, as it has me (the samples I've read have left me unwilling to even read the one book all the way through).
But I just don't see how the most page-turning plot in the world can offset such cludgey sentence construction.
But I just don't see how the most page-turning plot in the world can offset such cludgey sentence construction.I know many people here didn't like it (although I believe the other Megan is with me on this--if only we could convince a few Amys), but I enjoyed The Da Vinci Code. The writing certainly wasn't its strong suit, but it was definitely a page turner. Of course, I may feel that way because I read it before all the hype (for some unknown reason, I pre-ordered a first edition from the "Men's" History Book Club). That's why I had such high hopes for the movie, because a lot of what was clunky or repetitive could have been stripped out.
I read it after the hype, and I enjoyed it too, but for the page-long digressions in the middle of action sequences.
I had read Angels and Demons, an earlier book, first and I actually thought it was the better book. A lot of it seemed to be retreaded in the second book. Depending on the casting, the rumored movie could be pretty awesome.