How much language does eragon the movie have

It's a nice holiday film for the family and I'm glad George Lucas produced it. It's a given like Star Wars there will most definitely be a sequel as too many plot threads were left loose and several characters left hanging so to speak. Acting honors go to Jeremy Irons as the Obi Wan Kenobe of Dragon Riders who breaks in Eragon and teaches him the skills of the dragon riding trade. I could have seen him in that part as well. I understand he was almost cast as Peter Pevensie in The Chronicles of Narnia, the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Ed Speelers is the Luke Skywalker of the film and he's making a screen debut and a most auspicious one. I shouldn't go any farther because if you know the plot of the first Star Wars film you know exactly what happens. The dragon's voice is done by Rachel Weisz and while I have to say it doesn't take the place of Sean Connery's voice in Dragonheart, still it's a nice performance. When it hatches it's a bouncing baby dragon and a she dragon at that. It turns out to be a dragon's egg and he keeps it and nurses it. Young Eragon played by Ed Speelers finds a bright blue oval shaped object and keeps it. That being said, I did enjoy this fantasy very much, thought the special effects were great and the players in the cast most appealing. That seemed only fitting because young Christopher Pasolini totally ripped this story off from Star Wars and gave it a medieval never never land setting. 5/10 Bethany CoxДЄfter just coming from a screening of Eragon, I was interested that George Lucas produced this film. Overall, not unbearably awful but I don't necessarily recommend it. The actors though are burdened by a very hammy and lacklustre script that could've done with more intelligence and wit and there are parts where the direction is flawed. It is pretty much the same for Sienna Guillory, gorgeous but unconvincing. Ed Speleers is rather bland as Eragon, handsome yes but bland. The story was a great idea, but due to the running time primarily it meanders all over the place and is unevenly paced(sometimes feeling rushed and sometimes it drags). This could be a reason why the relationship between Eragon and Sapphira came across as unconvincing. One is that the film is too short, consequently the characters feel thinly sketched. However, there are many things wrong with Eragon. The best thing though was the dragon Sapphira, very well designed with expressive voice work from Rachel Weisz, and the flying scenes and the CGI effects are a delight. Also John Malkovich chews the scenery with glee as the tyrannical King Galbatorix, and Robert Carlyle is decent as Durza. Jeremy Irons, a great actor, does a good job as Brom acquiring a dry sense of humour, much better than he was in Dungeons & Dragons, somehow his overacting in that film managed to further bring it down. The acting is uneven, but there were some good performances. Plus the cinematography was excellent, as was the sweeping score. The sets are wondrous and the costumes are very nice. Starting with the redeeming qualities, the film is very assured visually and technically. Also, I do not think it is the worst fantasy film ever, that dishonour belongs to Dungeons & Dragons. While the film could have been much better, there are redeeming qualities. First things first, I have yet to read the book, but my brother absolutely loves it and says it is so worth the read.

How much language does eragon the movie have