troy? good or bad?
Quote:Originally posted by masterblaster
The places existed, we are pretty sure the people existed, and the war happened.

We are sure that the PEOPLES existed. Some people have argued that Agamemnon was a historical king, or based on a historical king. I'm not sure about Menelaus.

As for proving Homer wrong, well, that is quite possibly an exercise in frustration. Not because he is right or cannot be proven historically inaccurate, but because "The Iliad" is OBVIOUSLY historically inaccurate on many details and yet, if you feel otherwise, what more can be said?

Homer was a poet, not a historian. And even if he was a historian, he was not a contemporary to the events which he wrote about. Furthermore, the Achaeans probably weren't even his own people (he is believed to have been an Ionian, one of the older Greek groups who were pushed aside by the Achaeans), so he can't even be said to have passed on tribal traditions he inherited as part of his native culture.

The earliest historian in Greek culture was Herodotus, who lived about 300 years after Homer is believed to have lived. Much of what Herodotus recorded was folklore and is not regarded with much historical credibility, but his method was basically to preserve what lore people taught in his time. He provided an extensive geographic survey and numerous anecdotes about tribes, cultures, and the movements of peoples in the centuries leading up to his time.

Herodotus' goal was to preserve natural lore about the civilization of his day, whereas Homer's goal was to entertain people.

Finally, what we usually regard as Homer's works (the poems "The Iliadl" and "The Odyssey") in their final forms were actually set down centuries after Homer by Pisistratus. So, most people haven't actually read the works of Homer. Rather, we have read the edited works of Homer.
I have a book titled The Oxford Illustrated History of Europe, and there's this clay tablet with a drawing of a man stabbing his enemy very much like Brad Pitt's Death Blow to his enemies we saw in the movie Troy. You know, the one where he jumps and stabs his enemy in the shoulder? Maybe those movie researchers for Troy used this as a reference for Brad Pitt's Achilles signature move? It's nice because the caption for the book says the loser was protected by his shield in vain. Anyway it's nice to share it if I knew how to post a pic. The clay tablet was from the chapter on Mycenaeans.

There are also photos of drawings of soldiers with those figure-of-eight shields in the movie, and those big square shields. I think these are drawings on pottery.
I saw this today and thought it stank of mediocrity. The first half was awful with clunky dialogue and Brad Pitt posing constantly. The second half was much better, but to be honest it was nothing special.
Hi when I wnet to see this fil I thought it was very good and well done it was very bloodthursty but I good fil to see one ofr my bro and dad but I still liked it I think that oraldo bloom is abit of a woos in it he cnat fight oh well hes still fit Miranda
I finally saw this the other night. I really enjoyed it. I fully expected it to be "Hollywoodized" and not historically accurate, so anything that was changed did not bother me in the least. I thought the movie moved along well, and did not feel like it was more than 2 1/2 hours long. Brad did an excellent job as Achilles. I found myself actually liking his character, which I did not expect. But he was very conflicted, and even showed a soft side. I loved Hector and Priam - very likable characters. I liked Helen more than I thought I would. As for Paris, I liked him about as much as I could. He is kind of wimpy, but that was to be expected. Orlando played him well. Oh, and I almost forgot Odysseus. What is with me leaving the LOTR actors for last? :bg: Yes, I liked Odysseus as well.

Del and Cali - I also enjoyed there being male nudity rather than female. It gave us chicks something to look at for once! :bg: A male friend of mine asked me about the movie and wanted to know if I thought he would like it, and I said I don't know seeing as there aren't any boobs in it. After hearing that, he decided he'll wait to rent it, if he'll even bother then. Men!! Rolleyes
I thought Orlando did an excellent job as Paris. And since Paris is one of my three favourite characters in the Iliad anyway, I really did think he was portrayed well in the movie (I mean, as he was written in Homer - not as a great hero)

Athena, I think the names you're looking for there are Andromache and Briseis. Andromeda was Perseus' wife, who saved her from the sea monster.

And I didn't like the woman playing Andromache, not at all. Gah! It seemed to me the most she could stretch to for emotion was a frown, which she carried whenever anyone spoke to her.
"Cali rules these forums. I think that whatever she says, she's always right, so I'm abdicating my throne for her to take over control. MWA to all! :kiss:"
- RobRoy
I'm so glad that I don't know much about Greek history. Looking out for historical accuracy (e.g. costuming, bronze weapons, etc, which have been mentioned) would have distracted me from the movie, and not finding them would have ruined it entirely.

I enjoyed the movie - for what it was. I was moved by the love, thrilled by the action sequences, and saddened by the destruction of Troy. What more do you look for in a movie? If I want to know what exactly Homer wrote of the war, I know by now not to rely on a Hollywood movie. I'll read the Illiad instead (which I'll have a second attempt at soon...).

As for the music - RobRoy, I disagree with you. In style it was good in that it conveyed the mood well. But it wasn't exactly original - every now and again a familiarity came up, each time a nasty surprise as I recognised something from another film. The female voice near the end of the film practically screamed "Gladiator"! I hear though that the soundtrack was put together in an extremely short time, which excuses the guy. But IMO it's not an outstanding soundtrack by far.
It is impossible to make a "historically accurate" movie about the fall of Troy. There are no historical records of the event (which was one of several). We only have archaeological evidence showing that the city was indeed burned down about the time Homer and the other Epic Poets said it had been.

The events in the movie are not intended to portray the events in "The Illiad". They are intended to portray a theoretical historical vignette. The movie is trying to convey the sense of, "What if 'The Iliad' was based on real history? What if these people really lived? Here is one depiction of how the war could have unfolded."

Everything is thus dressed down, simplified, stripped of the more fantastic elements which are drawn from the Greek mythology.

The same premise underlies the upcoming "King Arthur" movie. It's not supposed to be a retelling of the traditional Arthur story any more than "Troy" was supposed to be a retelling of "The Illiad".
Ooh! The soundtrack! My pet peeve! I hated it! It whines and it grates and it distracts from the action onscreen. Whoever said it was good needs to have RobRoy's goats sicced on them!

And I also didn't like the way Thetis (Achilleus' mother) came across. She seemed to be some crazy lady who collected seashells ALL the time.

And Comma, trust me, knowing Greek history actually adds to the film. I'm sure that's where I got most of my enjoyment from it - spotting the little things that I can only presume were supposed to be spotted.

Now, who was it encouraging me to have a rant?
"Cali rules these forums. I think that whatever she says, she's always right, so I'm abdicating my throne for her to take over control. MWA to all! :kiss:"
- RobRoy
Without ever having read The Iliad, but knowing the basic story of the events, I quite enjoyed the movie. I lack the knowledge to contest the accuracy against The Iliad. Mind you, I still enjoyed the LOTR movies, despite the many changes from the books.

The first forty minutes or so of Troy were the weakest, IMHO: clunky dialogue most notable. After this time I finally found myself drawn into the story, following the characters and events.

After having read various reviews, few complimentary, I went to the movies without expectations.

I think in this day and age there would be many people who simply do not know the story of Troy, or of Achilles' tale. For the arrow through the heel to really work (most people just going Huh! I thought he was so good, but a shot in heel does him in) we probably needed to see an opening scene of Achilles being dipped in the River Styx, to understand why he's virtually immortal. However, I agree totally with Michael on the 'this is fiction' and 'what if The Iliad was based on real history', and that to have the moreso mythological source of Achilles' prowess probably would not have fitted with the intent of the movie. At the least, I think some type of 'hook' needed to be established early in the movie to support Achilles' fall at the end.

I really liked the way they portrayed Achilles' fighting style, and that of the other leads. There was just something more grandiose about the stylised mode of swordplay: the hop, skip & jump; really enjoyed that.

All the Trojan shields had crudely etched horses on them, which gave the impression of the importance of horses to the people of Troy. This made the gullibility of the Trojan Horse as a gift all the more believable. This touch I liked as well.

Despite some flaws, generally the movie gets my thumbs up!

I would watch it again, and probably get it on DVD.

I preferred the scope of Troy to what was done with Gladiator.

~ Matt
"So they were told when the moon would rise, the best time to leave with your soul, she's gone but towards the light, watching her whole life unfold..." Crowded House - Catherine Wheels
TROY isn't really a direct-to-movie adaptation of the ILIAD, that much is obvious from the very start of the movie when a narrator describes Agamemnon's power spreading over Greece, and then there's this battle which was fought between champions, one of whom was Achilles.The ILIAD begins at the 10th year of the war, and starts with Agamemnon and Achilles' quarrel. I think it's more of a WHAT IF story, something like how the 13th WARRIOR movie is to the Beowulf legend.

I'm surprised it was almost 3 hours, as I didnt notice it, it was quite fast paced.

One thing I cant believe was how Paris managed to go into Helen's room unnoticed, and it was kind of a big party too, with lots of people. Surely its very easy to notice when someone is going upstairs.

I would have wanted Menelaus to live, I kinda liked his character.

Hector is great, and Achilles is really fearsome.
I personly liked it. I would watch it again if I had a chance. I knew about the Troyan war before I saw the movie and I didn`t really expect that Zeus or Aphrodite or Ares or Athena will show up. Or other gods. I think that movie makes made a great job and acters were very well chosen.
Quote:Originally posted by Deluwiel
Whats wrong with all the man flesh?? Im sick of going to the movies and all we see is boobs, boobs and more boobs. 3 cheers to Wolfgang Peterson on this one. It made a nice change.

I saw it last night and liked it !! My sentiments exactly on all the male flesh!! I thoroughly enjoyed it :tongue: :lick: :drool: So thank you Wolfgang, that was something different for a change !! Brad Pitt is not exactly my type, but I couldn`t deny the eye candy factor and as an actor he was a very good Archilles. Eric Bana was brilliant as Hector :clap: and Peter O`Toole - outstanding as always ... :clap: I`ll definitely watch it again when it comes on out dvd ...
OAKSFC Team Member @
"You know what they say about big feet, babe? ;-) Big shoes !! :-D " ~ Kevin Sorbo, Australia 2005
Quote:Originally posted by Athena
Helen, well, pardon me but I didnt think she was the stuff that wars were fought for. Perhaps she was a beauty but I couldn't tell by the pound of make up caked on her face.

Agreed. For the "Face that launched a thousand ships" it was remarkably average.
The movie's scenario supposes that the war was really fought for other reasons.

Again, this movie is NOT an adaptation of "The Iliad". It is a "What if it really happened this way..." kind of movie.
Quote:Originally posted by Michael
The movie's scenario supposes that the war was really fought for other reasons.

Not even supposes. It makes the statement quite blatantly. Helen realizes it and states as much. Hector knew it from the moment that Helen was revealed to him by Paris. It was the main impetus for him ordering the ship turned about, and back to Sparta. Agammenon states it to his borther, Menelaus. And on, and on, and on.

The Homeric tradition is that Helen was the most beautiful woman in the world, and worth of tens of thousand getting killed. Troy takes a much more practical stance, in that Helen was only the catalyst; an excuse for something that Agammemnon had wanted for a long time.

That being said, Diane Kruger, without much make-up, was quite stunning. Being the wife of a king, as well, and one powerfully connected, makes it believable that even the pre-text of retrieving Helen might have been the main goal of such an expedition.
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Quote:Originally posted by RobRoy
Not even supposes. It makes the statement quite blatantly.

Okay, the premise of the movie is the supposition that the war was fought for other reasons, which are spelled out in the movie.

Quote:Originally posted by Michael
Okay, the premise of the movie is the supposition that the war was fought for other reasons, which are spelled out in the movie.


Sorry, that probably sounds like I'm correcting you, which I'm not. Rather I intended to support your statements, though I was in a bit of a rush for a job interview, and it ends up sounding other.

Yes, you're quite right. The idea that Helen isn't beautiful misses the true point of "the face that launched a thousand ships".
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
No, no. MY mistake. I am sure that, were I less rushed myself, I would have understood you better.
To view, use your mouse to select the text:

Starting at the begininng, I was struck by how cluttered the film became with the various cuts back and forth between the locations and characters. I didn't like this very much. The characters didn't get the time to say much beyond a few clipped lines and the various alliances were not all that clear. Until about twenty minutes into the film, I had no idea who was really in charge of the Greeks.

Then it became clear that Menelaus was Agamemnons brother and things started to fall into place.

Second. If this was a true story and Homer was not just jerking our chains, then the Trojans deserved everything they got. That Paris was a stupid fool!

In one of the Jack Aubrey books or other, Patrick O'Brian put forward the notion that the Iliad was a litany against infidelity, and having seen this film, I can only agree with him. What sort of a moron puts his entire family/ nation in jeopardy just for his own pleasure?

Through out the entire film I was rooting for Paris's bloody demise and watching him gun Achilleos down like a whining lil tralk made my blood boil.

Hector's child made an orphan, Troy burned, thousands slain and all for what? Just so this idiot and his tralk of a princess could get together!!?

Homer must have been a right pessimist...

Third. The music. James Horner really frelled up.
Thats one Cd I'll not bother to buy...

Fourth. The fights. The battles were rushed and confusing I thought. And I breathed a sigh of relief when ever Brad Pitt was fighting since only then were the actual moves visible. The fight between Achilleos and Hector was beautiful. Brad Pitt was fantastic!

Although I liked Hector (Bana was very good) I liked the way he died. It was very good for the story, and for a while it seemed that the film had reached a new level. Brad Pitt was trying hard to portray something far greater than was described in the adapted script, but apparently Petersen was having none of it...

This was what really damaged the film in my opinion. A two and half hour blood fest is all well and good, but not when your dealing with the greatest work of all the classics...

I loved the battles... I am after all a war gamer... but I wanted more. I wanted emotion. Raw, powerful emotion. The sort of emotion that makes men kill without pity, but all I got was Orlando Bloom trying hard to look the part...

(And never was a better more aptly named!)

...and I'm afraid I've taken against Bloom. When he crawled back to Hector after his defeat at Menelaus's hands I was right there. Real fear and honest cowardice and a brother who stood between him and death. It was brilliant...

But to go from that to having Paris shoot down Achilleos... beautiful wonderful Achilleos... the greatest warrior who ever lived be gunned down by Orlando Bloom!!!!

It was almost more than I could bear.

Fifth. The 'call of History'.

I seriously doubt the old Greeks all went to war, fought and died in countless wars, invaded and destroyed each other... all on the idea that they would be remembered for it. It was depressing to have these people justifying their efforts by bring me (by way of their legacy) into the equation! As if Agamemnon was interested in how he would be remembered! He wanted power and glory in his hands... not an epitaph.

...and that brings me to point six.
I hate Brian Cox! I frelling hate that guy!!!

What is it with Hollywood and Brian Cox!?? The man is a lousy actor and a complete eye sore, and yet he crops up in film after film, carting out the same tired performance of the evil man in the background again and again. Enough already!! Some body lock that man up!!!

Worst of all, was Agamemnon really that man? My understanding of Agamemnon has always been that he was essentially a great warrior king... but not a blood thirsty tyrant...

I guess its all a matter of interpretation.

The final verdict. 3/5.

It could have been better. Much better. It could have been a real beauty of a film, but in the end it was left to Bana and Pitt to save the day.
Without them this film was nothing.
:paw: Speak up! Don't mumble!!

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The good and bad science of "Earth II" Michael 0 538 May 22nd, 2018, 02:54 AM
Last Post: Michael
  What old cartoons, shows and movies would make good movies? badlands 2 607 April 30th, 2014, 01:04 PM
Last Post: FilmGuy
  "Prince of Persia" - My Review (not good) Michael 14 1,210 July 30th, 2010, 11:53 PM
Last Post: badlands
  good movies?? forgotm 6 578 December 11th, 2009, 01:30 PM
Last Post: Luweewu
  Bettie Page remembered for icnonic good-girl-bad-deed notoriety RobRoy 2 406 December 13th, 2008, 08:49 PM
Last Post: Han Solo
  Aeneas a movie about his life after the fall of Troy? badlands 7 905 October 2nd, 2008, 04:49 PM
Last Post: Luthien_001
  TROY opinions please... ThePharoah 1 480 January 6th, 2005, 06:27 PM
Last Post: RobRoy
  Where can I find a website that has good King Arthur pics? Unregistered 1 412 August 8th, 2004, 03:27 AM
Last Post: Boomstick
  Troy Revealed... Akasha 21 1,457 November 21st, 2003, 05:39 AM
Last Post: Akasha
  Movie characteristics of Good Guys v Bad Guys mpee 10 648 September 13th, 2003, 01:06 AM
Last Post: TwoXForr

Forum Jump: