User ReviewsReview this title
More than that, "Troy" is without a doubt the BEST sword & sandal epic ever put to film. You name the picture -- "Samson and Delilah," "Spartacus," "Ben-Hur," "Ulysses," "The Viking Queen," "Braveheart," "Attila," "The Odyssey," "Gladiator," etc. -- "Troy" is BETTER. Okay, maybe I'm getting a bit carried away here because I just viewed "Troy" and it blew me away, but "Troy" is at least AS GOOD as some of the better flicks just mentioned, like "Ben-Hur," and far edges out "Spartacus" and "Samson and Delilah." As for more recent sword & sandal epics like the overrated "Braveheart" or "Gladiator," "Troy" utterly blows 'em out of the water -- no lie.
Roger Ebert is a great writer and critic, but his mediocre review of "Troy" is all wrong. Ebert's major criticisms, believe it or not, are the main reasons I have such high respect for this film -- He complains that Petersen omitted the many Greek 'gods' & 'goddesses' and gripes that the actors perform their roles as believable people and not larger-than-life caricatures. This can, of course, be respectably done, as in the 1955 film "Ulysses," but this is not what Petersen was shooting for in "Troy." His goal, as already noted, was to depict the ACTUAL Trojan war that Homer's myth is based on (and even if it never really took place, wars LIKE IT did).
Regarding Brad Pitt's heavily criticized performance as Achilles, I'm not a major Brad Pitt fan -- I neither love him or hate him -- but I think he does an outstanding and believable job portraying Greece's greatest warrior. No he's not the bulkiest warrior to ever grace the earth, but he's fast as lightning, confident, expertly skilled and deadly accurate. Even his voice completely fits the role. Eric Bana (from "Hulk") is also great as Hector, Achilles' Trojan counterpart, who's sick of war and just wants to live a life of peace with his family. These two have a showdown in the film and it is without a doubt the greatest man-to-man sword & sandal fight ever filmed -- really!
What's interesting about the picture is that you never really end up rooting for one side or the other. When Achilles and Hector have their powerful showdown, my wife and I couldn't decide who to root for. Maybe that's the point. Don't get me wrong here, Agamemnon could probably be viewed as the villain in this picture, and I wasn't rooting for Menelaus when he fights Paris (Orlando Bloom, who seduces Helen, Menelaus' wife), but neither the Greeks or the Trojans are painted as the 'good guys' or 'bad guys.' They're just people at war, and in war there's no real glory, as Hector points out,... and it never ends, as Achilles states. An additional point of the film is that living in a state of war is a JOYLESS existence. And both Bana and Pitt get this across well.
As for beautiful women, there are only a couple mentionables: Diane Kruger plays Helen, "the face that launched a thousand ships." Some have complained that she's too plain for the role, but I disagree. Not that I think she's some ultra-ravishing beauty (although she does have a supremely impressive rear-end shot), but she's certainly not plain looking; and, besides, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder -- if Paris deems her worthy of starting a war, who are we to disagree? Also on hand is cutie Rose Byrne who plays Briseis, the virgin priestess whom Achilles converts to the pleasures of the flesh.
I should point out that "Troy" is one of the most expensive pictures ever made, close to 200 million dollars, and it definitely SHOWS on the screen. Make no mistake, "Troy" is breath-taking just to WATCH -- the colossal armies, ships and battles are awe-inspiring to behold, not to mention the Maltan and Mexican locations. And the CGI effects are outstanding, not fake-looking like the Rome and Coliseum scenes in "Gladiator."
Another complaint by Ebert is that the dialogue is lousy; nothing could be further from the truth. There are great pieces of dialogue interspersed throughout the flick, including Achilles' comment that the 'gods' envy people because we're mortal and "Everything's beautiful because we're doomed." So don't worry, there's thankfully not one 'humorous,' goofy one-liner anywhere to be found.
James Horner's score should also be mentioned. If you enjoyed the soundtrack for "The Passion of the Christ" you'll love this one because it's just as good/serious/appropriate/powerful. For instance, the intense percussion during Achilles and Hector's showdown is magnificent.
INTERESTING NOTE: Brad Pitt, who plays Achilles, injured his Achilles tendon while making the film. Fitting, no?
FINAL WORD: If you're into sword & sandal epics, "Troy" will blow you away. The story captivates you right from the very beginning and never lets up the entire 2.5 hour running time. Beyond this "Troy" extravagantly visualizes the Trojan war for you, something I never did until seeing this mind-blowing, outstanding piece of cinema.
Keep in mind that those who give "Troy" a poor rating are the same losers who think "Jackass -- the Movie" is a great film.
Lovers of Homer and Greek mythology may be disappointed but keep in mind this film is about the Trojan War, not the Iliad. This war is epic in scale and isn't about poetry.
Still, it would be great if Sean Bean were given the opportunity to play Odysseus again. Although not on screen much in Troy, his performance is edgy and true to the legends of the cunning king of Ithaca.
However the film does have some redeeming features despite it's many floors. But for starters (I do apologise) I'm going to rant about the things I really hate about this film first just to vent my disappointment!!! I don't want to spoil the plot for you if you haven't yet seen the film so instead I'm going to mention some of the great things that never made it in from the Iliad.
***this section contains some plot clues and spoilers***
First off, Menelaus! The character is completely different from Homer's original epic, to the point which makes me want to cry... for those who have read the Iliad, one of the greatest moments for me was when Menelaus fights like a lion standing guard other Patroclus' lifeless body. And other moments when he's shown to be honourable, like during the duel with Paris and saying he would rather leave Helen than risk the lives of so many of the Argives.
Also Telamonian Ajax, his character butchered with poor casting and a premature death at the hands of hector. What about when he rescues Achilles' body from the Trojans!!!
Another potentially great role hampered by poor scripting and bad casting was Nestor (which should have been Anthony Hopkins) and Diomedes and his 'Aristeia' that never made it. Not to mention Achilles never lived to see the wooden horse built let alone use it to infiltrate Troy/Ilium. Don't get me started on Orlando Bloom!!!
Yet despite all this Troy has its moments and some good performances and cast choice. Pitt as Achilles was the good obvious choice as with Bana as Hector. The rest of the cast did the job... The Myrmidon beach landing was quite entertaining and their armour was stylist if a little too fantasy inspired for my tastes.
I didn't really want to put people off as the film was reasonably entertaining. Just felt like I needed a rant, being a bit of a purist having loved studying Homer's Epics and other Greek tragedies.
Wolfgang Peterson's Troy is an infuriatingly mixed bag by no means the disaster most critics say but not the masterpiece it could have been.
Based (somewhat loosely) on Homer's The Illiad, Troy tells of the ten year siege of Troy caused by Prince Paris illicit romance with Helen of Sparta the face that launched a thousand ships. And those thousand ships, battles, and numerous special effects certainly please the eye. But huge battles do not a great film make. Fortunately, the Illiad is such a superb story it's virtually impossible to mess it up completely.
Most of the cast acquit themselves well, despite mispronouncing certain names. Brad Pitt makes a fine Achilles, Brian Cox a suitably scheming King Agamemnon, and Orlando Bloom an appropriately cowardly Paris. However, all are totally outclassed by Peter O'Toole's King Priam, an outstanding performance. In fact, it made me wish David Lean had directed The Illiad in the 1960's and cast O'Toole as Achilles. The only actor who even comes close to his brilliance is Eric Bana, who strikes a suitably tragic note as Hector.
On the other hand, Diane Kruger does not convince as Helen, and I am forced to agree with Empire magazine her face might launch a rubber dingy or two, but not a thousand ships.
Also, James Horner's music score is rather pedestrian which is hardly surprisingly considering he had very little time to write it. Apparently some brainless studio executive thought it was a good idea to replace Gabriel Yared's reportedly marvellous original score because it wasn't `thumping enough'.
Why on earth anyone thought it a good idea to eliminate the supernatural elements of the tale I will never know. Integral to The Illiad are the gods and their petty squabbling, and Achilles, whose identity as a son of the gods is never explained. Those with no previous knowledge of Greek mythology will be wondering why on earth an arrow in the heel kills him.
Overlong, overblown, and ultimately taking itself way too seriously, the film is worth watching for a single brilliant scene where Peter O'Toole begs Brad Pitt for the body of his dead son. In that moment the film ascends, temporarily, to the level of the great Greek tragedy.
Wolfgang Petersen's film benefited from the effect "Gladiator" and offered the possibility of expanding commercial horizons towards a film that seemed gone. The hand of the director knew gather show off an interesting story, noble and unsweetened, reasoning the causes and motivations of his characters, taking their time and giving large doses of artistic genius. If then we were accustomed to battles (Braveheart, Gladiator) "Troy" epic again the limits of the legend, which allowed Petersen to take some personal leave based on the "Iliad" of Homer.
"Troy" recently returned with a new version that included 30 minutes of footage, while not changing the story dramatically, they emphasized that in its most violent, inflaming and giving more power to the stories of the main characters . The result is a film studio, worked well in not missing the show as main weapon. Its key strengths, are founded on the roles of Brad Pitt (Achilles) and Eric Bana (Hector), dwarfing the story between Helena and Paris which is what gives the story plot.
It is the personality and the clash between Pitt and Bana interpretive works best in the film, along with the superb soundtrack, with a song that touches your heart, "remember me". The music is perfectly adapted to the time when the film is.
Fight scenes were not overdone, and the love scenes were part of but didn't completely rule the story of Troy which I also liked. If any thing else Troy will go down as having one of the most impressive fight scenes of any film in history. The fight between Hector and Achilles is reason enough to watch Troy alone...
So I saw it again for History class (since it's not historically accurate, perhaps that wasn't the best idea). And I bought the DVD.
And look what happened.
I strongly suggest to anyone who was looking forward to "Troy" in cinemas to rent or buy the DVD and give it another chance in your home. It is truly a much richer, perhaps even exciting experience, as your expectations have been lowered, and often this makes a movie-watching experience better.
Anyone who is not tired of the two-huge-armies-face-off battles we've been seeing in "The Lord of the Rings" films and now many other films following in that trilogy's footsteps will sure love the battles in "Troy". "Troy" takes it's battle sequences very seriously and while they have an epic grandeur look about them, at the heart of the battle - men are dying, men are killing other men. It's not all about kicking ass in this film. The battle sequences are a little more graphic than you might expect, and they are certainly brutal.
Brad Pitt, looking absolutely incredible here (the months of training sure paid off), shoulders the movie with much confidence and adds layers to his arrogant, self-centred Achilles. It's refreshing that Pitt, though technically the central hero of the piece, plays the character in a less likable way than you might expect. Achilles is unpredictable and dangerous, he was "born to end lives". As the greatest warrior in history, he is most definitely convincing.
Eric Bana and Orlando Bloom play more emotional heroes, and while Bana manages to give Hector an awesome kick-ass edge, strong nobility and adds many dimensions to his heroic part, Bloom doesn't quite handle the job as well. I do not dismiss Bloom's part in the film to be the "pussy" as so many have put it, but in emotional scenes, Bloom simply falls flat. His lines ("I'll hunt deer and rabbit, we can live off the land!") are often laughable due to bad delivery. It is more likely Bloom was put in this part for his looks rather than his talent, which is still in question by yours truly. I did like, though, that Bloom had a more realistic touch, the scene in which he faces Menelaus and fails to defeat him, running back to his brother, is nerve-wracking and powerful, not all men were great butt-kicking heroes, even back then, so it's good to see that put into the film, even if he does play the more "pussy" role.
One of my main complaints about the film the first time around was the unnecessary relationship between Briseis and Achilles. With more viewings, I have come to appreciate this subplot a lot more. As Achilles puts it, she gave him peace in a time of violence and war. Achilles is a character so often covered in other men's blood, constantly killing and fighting, that Briseis allows for Pitt to show the more sensitive side is actually useful to the character's development. Their final scene together is very emotional and the actors have genuine chemistry.
Wolfgang Petersen was criticised for being too much of a claustrophobic director to take on one of the biggest films ever made, but he handles the epic, large scale of the film nicely, if perhaps maybe not using as many swooping, stunning shots as he could. I certainly would've liked to have seen more of the set of Troy exposed. In the inevitable fire-fuelled finale it is showcased brilliantly, but more of these kinds of sequences would've been useful for Petersen to shut his critics up. He does a good job with the film, rooting the battles in genuine emotion and intelligence, and giving it a distinctive, memorable atmosphere and artistic look.
Perhaps as a historical piece, "Troy" isn't the film you're looking for. But for sheer entertainment value, it is one of the best films of 2004. Again, I urge anyone who was disappointed by the film to rent/buy it on DVD and give it another spin, it's not a decision you'll regret, I know I didn't.
More than just a movie, TROY is a species of cinematic time machine. In a most compelling and exciting way, it will transport you to a time and place far away, to the Greek islands of over three millennium ago, to be precise! For those of you with a good "Home Theater", this film will provide two hours of historical battles, conducted in a very realistic and impressive way, spectacular vistas of both land and sea, seamless digital effects that are difficult to distinguish from reality, and for women, a well- oiled Brad Pitt projecting a multifaceted and enigmatic Achilles, whose performance was highly underrated by critics.
In contrast, Orlando Bloom (Lord of the Rings , Pirates of the Caribbean) as Paris was somewhat indecipherable, leaving one with the question of whether the lack of character in his portrayal of Paris, was intentional or due to an under-par performance . The rest of the cast appears to be generally well chosen (with the exception of Diane Kruger in the role of Elena, who looked like a mechanical porcelain figurine) and bestows a resonance and a dimension to this historical drama rarely seen in a movie of this genre.
As announced in the end credits, TROY was "inspired" by Homer's Iliad, authored some 2,500 years ago. It's hard to understand the logic of "purists", who have cried "foul!" because Troy's plot often differs notably from Homer's original work. They complain that the movie is neither faithful to the Iliad nor to history. Well, the fact that the thousands of gods and demigods present in the book are absent from the movie is, perhaps, not necessarily a bad thing!.
As for historical events themselves, nobody really knows for sure what happened in Troy three thousand two hundred years ago! Practically everything is purely conjecture! So consider that TROY is a completely separate film version , with a different name , of the written work, the Iliad.
It is worth making a few comments on some technical aspects of the production : costume design , sets & scenery , weapons, boats and other elements of war demonstrate a work done taking his time, with enough love and an almost obsessive attention to an endless number of details , almost impossible to see and perceive well the first time you've seen the movie, but that clearly stand out during a second viewing.
There have been many works where the Seventh Art has spent a fortune, and the result ends up being anything but artistic! In the case of Troy, at least, it seems that the budget of $200 million has presented us with a very harmonious and aesthetic result . Even the sound, for those who are set on these things, is some of the best that has been produced so far for DVD! We must recognize the director, Wolfgang Peterson ( Das Boot, Air Force One , The Perfect Storm) which reached orchestrate an intense, clear and consistent cinematic vision of Troy .
A final recommendation....Despite the fact that Troy, really lacks any scenes of graphic violence, much less any sexually charged ones, because of the amoral, indecisive and unfocused tone of some of its protagonists, it would probably be a good idea to do a pre-screening with family and friends over 12, and then decide if you deem it suitable for younger people in your family!.
Hoping you really enjoy your two and a half hours in the city of Troy, in the second millennium before Christ ... and do not forget to pump up the volume !
8*....ENJOY!// DISFRUTELA !!!
Any Comments, or Questions, In English or Español, are most welcome ......................................................
This movie is not the usual Clash of the Titans/Jason and the Argonauts type of movie where the gods are constantly shown and portrayed as more important and powerful than the lowly humans. In fact, this movie completely ignores the so-called gods and instead places the focus where it belongs -- on the warriors themselves. I have studied the Iliad as well as other stories surrounding the mythical Trojan War since my days as an elementary school geek obsessed with mythology and Dungeons & Dragons. Instead of being targeted toward that audience this film demystifies the Trojan War and treats it in a manner in which it could have actually happened. We see that the elders who continually refer to their so-called gods come across as fools. One of the most telling lines is when Hector (Eric Bana) refers to the fact that Apollo did not strike down Achilles (Brad Pitt) for desecrating the statue. It is very telling that Hector seems to doubt the gods he has been taught to worship.
I have been a longtime critic of Brad Pitt as a second-tier talent who became famous only because of his looks, but in this film he surprised me. He is the TRUE star of the film. Achilles is easily the most interesting and entertaining character. I applaud Brad Pitt's effort in making his character a tragic hero. Achilles acknowledges that he is NOT the son of a goddess and is not immortal or invulnerable. The movie basically shows us how a rumor can blossom into a legend unto itself. Achilles' legend BECOMES immortal. He even refers to this in my favorite scene when he is inspiring his men and starts the invasion heavily outnumbered and still triumphs. Later in the same scene he scoffs at the so-called gods the Greeks and Trojans worship by decapitating the statue. I found this scene symbolic of the movie itself. The gods are nothing to both the characters and audience.
Instead of supernatural powers and impossible feats we're treated to realism. Even Achilles' death is more realistic than in the myth. In the myth Paris does kill Achilles with an arrow, but because he has no battle skills his hand is actually guided by Apollo.
If there was one thing I did not like in this film it was the transformation of Paris into some kind of hero. Paris was a coward in the original myth and I saw no reason to transform him into an overnight hero in the movie. I guess Orlando Bloom fans wouldn't be able to bear seeing him as the bad guy and were given the uninspired transformation of Paris into a better archer than Robin Hood.
While this movie was nowhere near the epic masterpiece that the producers had hoped or that it was advertised as, it did not deserve the bad publicity it received from critics. I applaud the makers of this film and look forward to buying it on DVD.
First, in response to all the Gladiator lovers who said on the boards that there is no one to cheer for in Troy, I say they are idiots. Gladiator was about a single protagonist. Homer's Iliad was always a complicated, ensemble story. The audience has to deal with a lot of main characters and THIS IS A GOOD THING. Its the Iliad, not Batman.
There was a complaint about the film not having a good side to relate to. This one irritates me. Real life seldom has the simplistic good guy vs. bad guy dichotomy. This in my mind makes Troy that much more believable. When events unfold I actually believed they could happen. Japanese cinema is so good at times precisely because we don't know who the good guy is. The question is simply irrelevant.
The script was written with a mind to keep the important details of the original story intact but to make it as realistic as possible. The gods are there but only in spirit. They don't get directly involved in the action like the original. I think this is a good thing as well. Troy looks like historical recreation rather than a literal translation of the poem. In one scene I thought there was an unlikely event and researched only to find it actually is in the Iliad. When the writer was asking for too much, he was in fact being true to the text. My bad.
OK, visually this film is amazing. Not just the army special effects but the sets and scenery are all beautiful. The costuming is first rate and feels very authentic. Remember, we are going back 3200 years. Quite an accomplishment.
The violence is likewise beautiful. Blood and guts galore, but interestingly it is both on the battlefield AND in single combat. A fight fan will appreciate the attention to detail in the combatants' moves. I had never seen a shield wielded so realistically on film. Spear and sword are given very realistic treatments as well.
Brad Pitt is a good actor. No question about that. Here he has a few moments where he seems out of place, a pretty boy in a soldier's world. But the combat scenes with him are more than enough to make up for that. It has already been discussed how much bigger he is than in Fight Club. The womens will have plenty to look at. His character is complicated and this is also true to the Iliad. Brad Pitt does this internal conflict lots of justice. His actions in the film really seem appropriate. I never asked, like I do in other films, "Why did he do that?" But this is not Brad Pitt's film. It's Eric Bana's.
Eric Bana was amazing. If Achilles was complex, then Bana's Hector is even more so. I had only seen Bana in Black Hawk Down and The Hulk and while BHD was good, there wasn't much for his character to do but be a soldier. The Hulk was so bad I wrote him off completely, blaming his acting for not saving a horrible script. But here in Troy I have new-found respect. He is the main character in the film if you judge by acting power. Lots of emotional struggling going on here that Bana takes on like a pro. He will join this generation's acting elite if he finds more roles like this.
The rest of the cast is good enough with a special note for Peter O'Toole and Brian Cox. Their lines are well delivered and their characters are believable.
The writing is good as far as plot development goes but I would take a few points away for some of the modern vocabulary. "Stop playing with me," the pretty Helen tells Paris. "Playing" should have been "joking" in that scene since I associate playing with modern English and even worse, with modern hip hop English. I shouldn't be getting that feeling in an ancient epic.
The Bad: Some of the dialogue THE MUSIC! (So disappointing considering how good the music in the trailer is)
There have been a lot of reviews making very sweeping statements about this movie. Especially regarding the casting of Brad Pitt and the acting of Orlando Bloom. To be honest, the above is nothing to worry about, both do a more than adequate job. One review on here said the movie would have been spectacular if it was on mute. I didn't know what he/she meant, but I can laugh about it now. (they're right) As the only downsides to this movie is the music and some of the dialogue. Other than that it great entertainment. O'Toole was awesome (like there ever was a doubt) every scene Sean Bean was in boosted the credability of the film. I felt sorry for Eric Bana's character Hector which means he did his job well. Rose Byrne and Brian Cox were the two surprise packets, delivering powerful and believable performances. All of which adds to the theory that if you want a great epic: You can't leave all the acting to the Americans! one needs some Brits or Aussies.(like in.. Gladiator, Braveheart, Lord of the Rings and now Troy.)
Don't worry about all the hype, this is a great and inexpensive way to spend an entertaining 3 hours. The scenery and fight sequences are awesome, it's almost worth paying to see how Brad Pitt moves with some of his weapons (shield especially).
Note: Spoilers coming!
Yeah! I am talking about Menelaus killed cowardly by Hector, or Agamemnon killed by Briseis, or Achilles being the cousin of Patroclus, or Hector killing one of the Ayaces, and where is the other Ajax, Diodemes, and all the other Heroes??? If it would not have been for these alterations to the original story, which really disturbed be (if you ever read the Iliad, you'll understand me)and which i really regard as unnecessary, and the usual Hollywood crap added to most American films (a good dose of machismo, exaggeration, historical inaccuracy, etc) This could have been a great film but unfortunately it is not...
But this movie is also far away from being a terrible film. The director and the actors did a nice job, Brad Pitt acts very good as usual, The guy that plays Hector does it in an amazing way too, taking most of the sympathy of the public. The movie is exciting and the battles are good, my favorite scene is before Achilles fights Hector, and he repeats the same line that in Homer's book "There are no pacts between men and lions"!! Another thing that I quiet liked and that was different that the book, is that in the film the GODS don't have much to do with the story, while in the Iliad they are central... but that's not too bad, I didn't miss Zeus or Apollo in the film, and I think this is a smart move for the film, because including the Gods would have been quiet difficult for a film like this.
What i missed was the respect for some important aspects of the story, which i mentioned before, and which were removed unscrupulously ... It could have been and immortal epic, but those omissions and alterations are unforgivable, and bring my given note from 10/10 to 7/10
This movie is about a young prince of troy (Orlando Bloom) who destroys his fathers peace treaty with Sparta when he steals the kings wife away from him. The angry king gets all the men of Greece and launches the largest army ever seen at the time. !000 ships 50000 men all to the beaches of troy. The trogans get ready and prepare to defend their home.
This movie is great. Brad pitt did a great job and so did everybody else except Eric bana. The battle scenes were very well done and extremely intense I recommend this movie to anyone who likes old war movies.
Apart from the leaden script and nondescript direction, the film's main deficiency is Orlando Bloom. The man has always been a hopeless actor, but here he plumbs new depths, turning in a performance that is based entirely on puppy eyes, simpering looks and flat line delivery. The man is wholly incapable of emoting. Although, to be fair, he is lumbered with a near impossible part the snivelling Paris. Even the most talented actor would have a hard time bringing such a wretched person to life. But seeing as Bloom is among the least talented actors in Hollywood, it makes the character all the more unbearable.
The most infuriating thing about Paris is the way he stumbles through the story, causing nothing but trouble, and yet he ends up killing the mighty Achilles and smelling of roses. Perhaps in more talented hands, this would have been fine, but here it makes you question why you watched the film. This pathetic loser condemns thousands of people to death (including his brother and father) so that a blonde strumpet can play with his winkie. Brilliant!
It's hard to pick a single scene that had me baying for Paris' blood (there are so many), but his most cowardly act comes during his fight with Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson). He's meant to fight to the death, ignorantly thinking that this skirmish will prevent further bloodshed. But even with his honour and the lives of his countrymen at stake, he runs away like a big baby and hides behind his brother. What a pathetic excuse for a human being. I share Menelaus' outrage when he exclaims to Helen that this is what she left him for.
And the scenes between Paris and Helen are nauseating. The two actors have zero chemistry and both have the screen presence of a couple of fruit flies. Do we care about their all-consuming love? Of course not. It's played like a couple of kids who have just discovered that their genitals are there for more than secreting waste material.
And speaking of Helen, isn't she supposed to be the most beautiful woman in the world? Instead we get your average foreign starlet with too much mascara and a larger than average schnoz. Sure any man in his right mind would tap it, but start a war over her? Forget about it.
In fact, a lot of the guys in the film are just as pretty as Helen. Just take the numerous ass shots we get of Brad Pitt. Then you have Achilles' cousin. He's your typical blonde-haired dreamboat. And is it any wonder that the only thing that truly enrages Achilles is the death of his beloved cousin, a cousin who he frequently engages in some light-hearted sword fighting with? But even though the film fetishes the male form (as well as a zillion shots of Pitt's toned butt, we also get to see an oiled Orlando Bloom he's completely hairless of course), it's strictly a torso and arse film no tits or willies.
But while the film fails spectacularly in terms of romance, character development and inter-personal relationships, it succeeds when it comes to action. The fight between Hector and Achilles, in particular, is superb. With lots of close contact and athleticism, it thankfully resists the urge to become overly fanciful. Instead you get something that feels pure and believable.
Another excellent fight scene is the one between Hector and Ajax. Again things are kept simple and the sequence benefits from it. I also enjoyed the fight between Paris and Menelaus the camera in the helmet is an excellent way of generating fear and claustrophobia but unfortunately its somewhat spoiled by Paris' cowardly actions. As is the final sequence where Achilles is slain. Here you have a character you're finally starting to like and he's cut down by a skinny imbecile with a bad curly haircut.
That reminds me, what's up with the haircuts in this film? All the men seem to have these weird semi-mullets Sean Bean, Eric Bana and Orlando Bloom especially. And then you have Brian Cox and Brendan Gleeson who seem to have acquired Gary Oldman's bizarre tit-head hairstyle from Francis Ford Coppola's version of Dracula. It's actually rather distracting I spent a lot of time looking at people's heads; the haircuts here are worse than the ones you see on a football pitch.
But as bad as his haircut is, I did enjoy Brian Cox in this film. Sure he's hammier than a ham sandwich, but at least he seems to be having some fun with it. I also think that Eric Bana is pretty damn good the film suffers badly when his character dies; Hector is the heart and soul of the movie. However, I think Pitt's performance is less successful. He's great in the action scenes, but everywhere else he seems out of place.
However, I like the idea of Achilles being a celebrity, a man who wants to further his own image at the expense of everything else. But as it is, this element of the story, like all the other ideas, isn't developed enough. The film aims low and scores small.
This is my first post in IMDb even though I use it as a reference for quite a while. I would therefore like to salute you all. The fact that I am a Greek is inevitably going to affect my judgement I hope not to your annoyance.
I spent 2 years of my life, (all we Greeks did actually), analysing Omirus epos (and not Homers as you see everywhere), rhyme by rhyme. If I recall well it was Iliada (Iliad) on 8th grade and Odysseia (Odyssey) on 9th grade. Warner's Troy, was a big disappointment to me and my fellow Greeks around the campus (I study in the UK).
Iliad epos is one of the very best literature works ever made. It was composed by a Greek poet Omirus a whole 400 years after the actual war. Historians put Trojan war around 1200 BC, and the actual reason of the war not being Helen's beauty but the strategically crucial position of Troy. That said one may now understand that Omirus epos is not presenting the actual events (as it's not accurate historically) but this was never the purpose of this work.
Reading this huge poem, one can find himself wondering for the very definitions of honour, love, anger, hate, heroism, discipline, loyalty and so on. The best part and the most educational as well were these prolonged talks between the warriors before the battle. None of these though were revealed in 'Troy'
Warner's Troy was really cheap to my eyes, and to other intellectual people English Finnish and German colleagues of me as well. It is a shame to spend millions of dollars in such a bad scenario. By the way perfect storm was a bad and stupid blockbuster (computers graphics did the whole work), and yet it is Wolfgang Petersen's best work.
I conclude saying that you'd better watch something else instead. I would give Troy 2 out of 10. It is a really expensive B movie.
Who was that girl who Achilles ran into the burning city to get? Who is she based on? For a second I thought she would be Cassandra mixed with some other people but then no. And I am completely SHOCKED AND AMAZED that the director took such artistic license as to kill Agamemnon in Troy. That is such a desecration of literature that I cannot believe that he thought he would get away with it. Does Petersen think that he is above yielding to the true nature of the story? That was it for me, I turned it off then, I don't care how the movie ends now.
For all of these reasons I hate this movie, what could have been a brilliant combination of action mixed with art Petersen missed completely; because he changed the story *SO* much this is a sad and lame excuse for both an action movie and a cinematic version of Homer's tales. Petersen missed both marks by a LOT. I don't know who I'm more upset with; the screenwriter who produced this crap or the director for making it viable. All of these things have been written and recorded and translated into every language for over a thousand years, certainly the screenwriter could have picked up some Cliff notes for a reference.
*For those who are interested: Agamemnon did not die in Troy. He went home with Cassandra as his concubine and was killed by his wife Clytemenstra because--before sailing for Troy-- he sacrificed his daughter to appease the god of the wind for good sailing. After his murder Clytemnestra cuts him up and serves him in a stew to her children Orestes and Electra. Wouldn't that have been a better end for a great villain?
Production-wise the movie is stunning. The costumes, the sets, and the weapons everything is top-notch, with excellent attention to details. The visuals are also stunning. The shot of Brad Pitt standing on the deck of a ship with the camera slowly zooming out, eventually revealing the entire Greek navy consisting of 1,000 ships is really a treat to the eye. The computer graphics are excellent. It's really hard to tell in the huge battle scenes which soldiers are computer graphics and which are extras, although you know that some of them must be CG because there are so many. The long shots of the city of Troy are also great eye candy. In all, the one thing this movie is especially excellent at is entertaining, and it is definitely a visually satisfying movie.
The acting is also pretty good. Brian Cox definitely stands out as the power-hungry Agamemnon. His acting is top-notch. Peter O'Toole is also good as Priam, the king of Troy. Eric Bana was great as Hector, although I don't think he physically matches the part. Brad Pitt wasn't as bad as I was worried he would be. In fact, his acting was quite good. Which brings me to my second opinion: While Brad Pitt's acting was quite good, I just don't think he fits the character of Achilles. It seems as if Brad Pitt wasn't entirely comfortable with Achilles' character, so he took it and dressed it over his own personality, which changed the character a bit. Physically, though, he looks perfect for the part. Eric Bana, on the other hand, is just the opposite. He truly captured the essence of the Hector character, and his acting is great, but I don't think that he physically matches the part. He's just kind of small and scrawny, while Hector is supposed to be taller and more muscular than Achilles, which is not how it seemed in the movie. It also seemed that his character was a bit too weak. He's supposed to be the greatest fighter on Earth, matched only by Achilles, and yet he struggled a bit just to kill Achilles' cousin, who had never even been in a battle before. When you look at how easily Achilles killed the giant soldier in the very beginning of the movie, it kind of makes Hector look far weaker than he's supposed to be. Also, while Agamemnon was supposed to be power-hungry and greedy, he was not hasty, and was considered to be one of the wisest kings. And yet, in the movie he makes very hasty and stupid decisions, which kind of lower his character to a stupid power-hungry oaf, while he was really quite smart. One character that I'm really happy about is Odysseus, played by Sean Bean. His character's essence was truly and perfectly captured: He's cunning, a good warrior and extremely smart. He constantly gives Achilles advice on how to approach Agamemnon, and is conveyed perfectly as Achilles' close friend. Odysseus also suggests various war strategies to Agamemnon, who is reluctant to listen. Now as much as I dislike Orlando Bloom, he actually pulls off the Paris character quite well, and fits the part of the weak, cowardly, naive pretty-boy prince perfectly.
All in all, Troy is definitely an entertaining movie, and the production is remarkable, but a few major historical inaccuracies, strange casting choices and a particularly cliché Hollywood ending lower my appreciation for the film.