Nonureva Really Surprised!

Inadvands Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Steven Torrey I liked the movie. It gives a good review of the events that led to the Trojan war. Questions regarding the exact nature of Helen are still debated in scholarly circles. Was she manipulator of people and events, or a victim of events? Did she run off willingly with Paris/Alexander or was she abducted? Was she a flake or was she some sort of über-woman? Sienna Guilory plays to all of these questions. At one moment a waif and when needed--über-woman; at one moment a victim, at another a perpetrator. The role is not as easy to play as one might think.But what if someone like Elizabeth Hurley was cast as Helen? Someone with body size to go with the indomitable and chameleon spirit of Helen? Would there be a different sense to the movie and to Helen as a theatrical role? Complaints about fidelity to the ancient text are duly noted; like reading the Cliff notes, a movie ain't the best way to crib for tomorrow's exam on the Iliad. Helen of Troy. Her story is one that grew over the years and with every accretion changed. In 'Agamemnon', Aeschylus doesn't even want to mention her name, she is a betrayer of Greece. Euripides' "Helen" might be regarded as the first bastardized story-line of the original from the Iliad. The Trojan Horse is an incident from the Odyssey and takes very few lines; Vergil's Aeneid discusses the Trojan Horse in any detail. So to think the viewer is watching an interpretation of Homer's Iliad, better re-read the original.The Greek story can be complicated to follow, especially for the modern viewer. I thought they did an admirable job of getting the general idea--even if some of the details were lost in translation.

Jinn An interesting take on the Troy Saga. It's like these people have gone to play "Troy" ... and did a fair job.I have mixed feelings ... It portrays Helen as wise, strong woman, rather than a ditz, tramp or slut as she has been portrayed in other versions, however she did seem to "know too much" about some things - we all know the story of Troy - How it begins and how it ends ... Perhaps it's tempting for writers and actors to write/act scenes as if they do not know the outcome), unfolds and ends, way but back then, they did - as then it was really happening. Despite the inaccuracies when weighed up against history, like Cassandra having the gift when she was a child ... And there was no mention of how Apollo fell in love with her when she was older... actually no mention of Apollo at all...The cinematography was brilliant, the acting in parts could have been better. I also liked how Helen was taken by Theseus at first and learned to love him and how she was pretty, but not drop dead gorgeous, - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Funnily enough when I want to IMDb to look up the actors, there was a quote of the day from the recent "Troy" about designing our destinies. How'd you like *that* message from the Gods! Also, fans of the Iliad, remember it was written *eight-hundred* years after the event as one Greek historian/scholar put it, "Homer gave us a great story, but he did not give us history." The story of Troy was being told for the better half of a millennium before Homer became the first bard to write it down - his version shows a slutty, ditzy Helen and Aphrodite and a very b!tchy Hera and Artemis… However the men and Gods are portrayed as all-so-powerful. Do not get me wrong, I adore the Gods as much as the Goddesses, however there's certainly more, much more to Troy than Homer's version allows one to see. And although Homer obviously lived closer to the time than anyone living in this day and age, he still wrote The Iilad eight centuries after it occurred. If a novelist/poet today wrote an epic novel/poem set 800 years in the past, even if based on factual events, it would be considered historical fiction.The fight in "Helen of Troy" between Paris and Menelaus was wall done, showing maturity of both characters and the scene with Helen and Menelaus near the end also showed how the characters had grown, even if it never occurred in history, but we'll never *really* know will we? I was very disappointed how the Goddesses were only in the movie very, very briefly, (they looked awesome when they appeared … I want a dress like that :) And no Gods at all :( … more divine intervention, please! This goes the same for the recent blockbuster "Troy." "Helen of Troy" is not a feel-good movie, it's sad and depressing, but the story of Troy, as with "Oedipus" are Greek tragedies and not meant to be uplifting. Though I am glad I saw this version of the Troy epic.The truth is, on a physical level no mortal will ever know exactly what transpired at Troy and to see different takes on the saga is refreshing, whether we like them or not and it allows us to see it through different eyes.Now if only they would make a movie/series of Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Firebrand" -- Troy told by the women.Finally.

ariadne1984 Reasonably well-made, and quite an entertaining watch --- as long as you don't expect anything more from it! If you watch this movie for reasons other than for entertainment, chances are you'll be disappointed --- it has little to do with the "Iliad" and less to do with the history. It has numerous interpolations which are nowhere to be found in the mythology, but that is the privilege of the authors. With most of these I have no quarrels ---- they streamline the plot and give it a certain connectivity --- but I must protest at the idea that Agamemnon rapes Helen, which seems to me to be a particularly tasteless and unnecessary interpolation. Agamemnon has faults enough, but this is one act he has never ever been accused of. Besides, it is completely out of keeping with his character --- Agamemnon is, above all, an ambitious man, and ambitious men do not go to war over a woman, no matter how beautiful. Agamemnon wants Troy, so that he can control the whole Agaean, and that is why he goes to war; Helen is an excuse, a pretext. I was also disappointed with the characterization of the two great heroes, Achilles and Hector; the one comes across as a suicidal madman, the other as an arrogant wimp. However, the rest of the cast is quite acceptable, Cassandra is played very well, and Agamemnon superbly --- the film may be called "Helen of Troy", but Agamemnon is the real star of the show. Watch it when you have time, it's fun enough.

carmaPMAHC Helen of Troy, just one of the many tireless adaptations of the Iliad. Unfortunately, movie writers decided to put a fancy Hollywood twist and Dada…this is the result. Having read the Iliad, you will be very disappointed by the fact that the producers seem to keep only the names of the characters from the original story. I never wanted to be cynical about the movie but as a lover of Greek Literature since Elementary the movie left a bad taste in the mouth. It was a good Hollywood movie, yes but as an adaptation to the Iliad? It's way below the scales. Another bad point is that the movie, exactly 175 minute long is cut. Yes, cut and horrifyingly done at the most important events. Students who have to do the review have to surf the net or else dig out the pirated DVD movies available in Mangagoy.Let me describe it as cheerfully as I can. Have you ever tried watching those after-news soap opera's? Well, that's exactly how the story was told. Like a soap opera. Most of the important characters in the story were turned to extras and the unimportant ones took on major roles. What happened to the two heroes of mythical proportions, Hector and Achilles? One is an arrogant teenager (in mentality) who couldn't hurt even a fly and the other one seems Vin Diesel or Kurt Angle the wrestler. What happened to the fact that Paris was only good as an archer? What happened to the honor, the heroism? Where is Pollux' twin Castor? Both saved Helen when she was kidnapped. I didn't know that Agamemnon took a liking to Helen, and that rape scene. How disgusting, immature and perverted can they be? The worst and most obvious was the ransom of Hector's body. Originally it was between Priam and Achilles but since the movie was Helen of Troy, who else would be the star and be on the spotlight but Helen herself and her rapist Agamemnon? It was supposed to be an outstanding scene; they turned it into a failure. Let's not get started about the war scenes…they used barbed wires in the background (They existed in the past???) On the bright side, students liked the movie. They cherished Cassandra's line; "Kill him! Kill him!" It stood the test of time and lasted up to the socialization. Oh, and they thought Helen was a flirt and her face could only launch a 100 ships, if people would bother! Paris, the ever handsome Paris. One flaw, though, he's got scoliosis. People have to love Agamemnon's eyes, cold and wicked, a sex maniac as students opt to say. The musical scoring was good; a woman singing in the background was quite eerie. Overall, the movie was good enough. Be warned though, don't read the Iliad or anything relating to it before and after watching the movie. You'll be thoroughly disappointed.