Troy

[IOfTheStorm]

Troy just has some "fun" moments (battle sequences mainly). It sucks that for the shake of Hollywood freaks, such a great story is altered . If Petersen was smart he would keep many things that would make the movie better. But he had to put the usual thing:
bad guys vs good guys
silly love story
lovers run away safe
At least he could keep some standards (hey dickhead, Menelaus was one of the most noble Greek heroes, not an uragutang with a sword), but he didnt.

 

[IOfTheStorm]

Achilles gets shot in the heel. But it doesnt kill him, just makes him fall down, and then other arrows are shot on him and kill him.

 

[lurch70]

I liked it also, which surprised the shit out of me as normally I am not into Brad Pitt vehicles or these long historical flicks.

It is completely historically innacurate, but if you are not too familiar with the actual story, you will enjoy it.

Don't read any reviews before seeing it and you will like it.

Then go read Ebert's review and watch him completely trash it

 

[Tranquillian]

It sucks. I've tried to see it twice but it's just too boring.

 

[MajestikMøøse]

Where The Fuck Is The Ten Yearssss The Movie Makes |t Seem Like A Fukkin Week

 

[SonOfNun]

Holy shit! I just watched this last night.

Overall, it was enjoyable. They did take a whole lot of what happened in The Iliad and screwed it up though. A lot of characters randomly dying when they weren't suppose to, the complete lack participation from the Gods and Godesses, etc. I'm a little bit of a Greek Mythology freak, but even with that, I still enjoyed it. One can't help but admire the character of Hektor regardless.

Also, one of the more subtle things I did enjoy was when Paris hands the Sword of Troy to a young boy and says something about how the Kingdom of Troy will always survive if this sword belongs to a Trojan. From what I've read, the Romans were descendants of the Trojans and their kingdom was established by a man who escaped from Troy after the war. Then the Romans eventually conquer Greece and everything comes full circle, so it was nice to see that included even if most people wouldn't think anything of it.

Outside of that, the ending was kind of lame. We all know what happens to Achilles, but if you live under a rock, avoid the next part. Paris of course shoots him in the heel, but instead of dying, he gets up, gets shot 4 or so more times in what would have been his immortal torso and then talks to and kisses his woman for about 10 minutes before randomly falling over. Just didn't seem very epic, didn't even seem like he was dying. Should've included Apollo guiding the arrow and a more realistic death.

*Spoiler*

Agammemnon also gets killed at the end, despite the fact he lived through the war, only to go home and be killed by his wife. So I thought it was interesting they let the woman kill him off at the end.

*End*

Anyway, I thought those subtle little things made it worthwhile and entertaining and being able to see the city of Troy and Hektor, but it really could have been done a lot better. It's not like they couldn't make a Hollywood blockbuster that includes more of the book. It seemed a little empty, but it wasn't bad.

 

[Demonspell]

As far as accuracy goes, I'd bet a large sum that the script was written in 48-72 hours after skimming through the Cliff's notes for the Iliad...

 

[General Zod]

Once again, I think if you're a fan of Homer's work, and looking for director Wolfgang Petersen to bring the story to the screen in a manner that's true to the original work, than yes, you'll be disappointed. However, if you recognize that this is merely an adaptation of a classic story, I think you'll find this is an excellent movie. I believe this point is confirmed by the fact that almost everyone I've spoken with who hasn't read "The Iliad", has flat out loved this movie.

I believe most people who have read the book, on which a movie is based, take a nearly pompous attitude with them to the theater. This attitude seems to be born from the belief that literature is a higher form of art than film. However, these people ironically seem to forget, that it's nearly impossible for any movie to convey what a book conveys, in the way that a book conveys it. For starters, a movie can not give you a character's inner thoughts. A book also has the luxury of taking its time, whereas a movie has somewhere between 90 and 180 minutes to tell its story. So are there liberties taken with the storyline? Yes, of course there are. Had Achilles died from a mere arrow to the heel, it would have seemed absolutely absurd within the context of the film.

I stand behind my original assertion; this is an excellent movie. The acting is excellent, the story is superb and the cinematography is wonderful. I found myself sitting on the edge of my couch during a number of scenes. So, feel free to turn your nose up and read the book. Your loss.

Zod

 

[J.]

Again, I have neither seen the movie, nor read the book, but I wished I lived during those times since, according to the movie (and probably the book), everyone is good looking. I'd fit right in.

I didn't take a pompous attitude to the Lord of the Rings movies, though Jackson did leave out Tom Bombadil, which pissed me off.

I thnk what a lot of "purists" hate about movies from books, is that the director sacrifices/changes an integral piece of the book for mere convenience, giving off the air that the director is not a fan of the book (or simply doesn't care), but simply trying to make money from taking a clasic story (Iliad) and slapping a few pretty faces in the story (Pitt, etc) in hopes of making a blockbuster.

The original Dune movie, which came out n the 80's is an example of this, with the director slapping a young Kyle MacLaughlan and a young Sting in the movie, and totally changing the story to fit his time clock. Thank goodness Sci Fi brought the true story to life with their miniseries.

Some examples of good book-to-movies are some Stephen King stories such as Green Mile, Shawshank and Stand By Me (originally called The Body). Stephen King book-to movies that failed were Needful Things and Hearts in Atlantis (where the fuck was the Dark Tower reference?), and probably a dozen more.

American Psycho is another good example of the drector bringing the book to life.

I'm an avid reader, and yes, I prefer books to movies, but I always welcome an attempt to make a good book into a movie. However, I expect the director to remain true to the story, and if he needs to change things up a bit, fine, but he needs to keep the main central story line intact. And if he was a real fan of the book (Peter Jackson, Frank Darabont), then he would see no reason to change the movie from the book, but simply condense it for time purposes.

 

[Lies and Perfidy]

Loathed it. I'm a huge Iliad geek, and the fact that they took out half the plotline–the struggles of the gods–and butchered the remaining half made me want to stab things. Also, no Diomedes. Diomedes was the fucking man. He got pinned to the ground by an arrow through his foot, and then he stood there killing anything that got close to him until help arrived. That would've been such an incredible scene.

Bah. Philistine directors.

 

[General Zod]

I thnk what a lot of "purists" hate about movies from books, is that the director sacrifices/changes an integral piece of the book for mere convenience, giving off the air that the director is not a fan of the book (or simply doesn't care), but simply trying to make money from taking a clasic story (Iliad) and slapping a few pretty faces in the story (Pitt, etc) in hopes of making a blockbuster.

I know this is often a criticism. However, I wonder how valid it is. Certain things work in books, certain thing work in movies. I'm not sure these changes are purely for convenience.

Keep in mind, to make a movie like this requires a huge budget, which means it needs to have blockbuster sucess at the box office.

As for the pretty faces thing, since when has Hollywood cast ugly people in their leading roles? Beyond that, we are talking about a Greek hero when we talk about Achilles. These heroes are rarely supposed to be unattractive. And while Pitt is a pretty boy, I also think he's an excellent actor.

Zod

 

[JayKeeley]

The first time I realized Brad Pitt could actually act was when I first saw "Kalifornia". I was pretty impressed, considering I thought of him as just a pretty boy daytime soap opera dropout.

And then came 12 Monkeys....surely his finest moment (acting-wise).

 

[NAD]

I mean:

 

[MFJ]

Lolz Vagina

 

[IOfTheStorm]

Zod: the thing is that the movie is mediocre on itself. Leave the comparison with all concerning "Iliad" out, the movie remains meh. The acting sucked too, the cinematography was nothing special (especially compared with other E-P-I-C films). And just how can someone enjoy a film where the pretty guy starts a war with thousands killed, he doesnt fight on it at all, he is responsible for the death of his family, and then just escapes with the girl... I am ok with silly Hollywood love stories, but someone cant just mix them with high moral values in a war etc
Making a LOTR film was a far more difficult task, but it was a total success in all aspects.

 

[Crimson Velvet]

Wasn't Achilles' cousin really suppose to be his gay lover? I've only read it once, and that was many years ago, so I could be mistaken. All in all, I enjoyed it, although I doubt I'll remember it in a few years...

 

[speed]

I thought the acting was ok; the problem was brad Pitt was making his character into a god, or at least immortal; the rest of the cast was engaged in standard british epic acting. If they all acted like gods, spoke slowly and deliberately etc, it may have worked a bit better.

But I of the storm is right, the cinematography etc, was not all that good. If the story and the cinematagraphy suck, you gotta a stinker.

 

[General Zod]

Zod: the thing is that the movie is mediocre on itself. Leave the comparison with all concerning "Iliad" out, the movie remains meh.

No problem. When I started this thread, I hardly expected everyone to agree with me. I'm fairly certain there's never been an RC thread where everyone agreed.

The acting sucked too, the cinematography was nothing special (especially compared with other E-P-I-C films).

Just out of curiosity, whose performance did you think "sucked"?

And just how can someone enjoy a film where the pretty guy starts a war with thousands killed, he doesnt fight on it at all, he is responsible for the death of his family, and then just escapes with the girl...

I think that's a valid reason for not liking the character. I'm not sure it's a good reason not to like the entire film.

I am ok with silly Hollywood love stories, but someone cant just mix them with high moral values in a war etc.

I really didn't think the romantic elements in this film were's it's prevailing theme, nor did I think the director was making any morals judgements.

Making a LOTR film was a far more difficult task, but it was a total success in all aspects.

I would agree it was a much greater task. Having not read the books, I've heard that the director did a superb job of staying true to the story. That being said, I enjoyed "Troy" more than any of the LotR movies.

Zod

 

[IOfTheStorm]

Mediocre performances: Orland Bloom, Diane Kruger, Peter O Toole (of course), even Brad Pitt too (and he is my favourite actor - he was just decent).
Also the whole film was around a LOVE STORY. Just that. It was presented like a stupid LOVE STORY. Its beginning was about it, and its ending too.

 

[General Zod]

Mediocre performances: Orland Bloom, Diane Kruger, Peter O Toole (of course), even Brad Pitt too (and he is my favourite actor - he was just decent).

I thought O'Toole, Brana and Pitt were all excellent.

Also the whole film was around a LOVE STORY. Just that. It was presented like a stupid LOVE STORY. Its beginning was about it, and its ending too.

Clearly there was a love story aspect to it. Given that the war is essentially fought over a woman, it's hard to expect something else. However, it was the non-romantic relationships that drew me in.

Zod