It had some good actors and good speacial effects but it still sucks. First, it long and boring. I think it close to 3 hours long but to it was eternity. Thereâs also a lot of repatition about every 5 or 10 minutes I was reminded that Achilles was fight for eternial glory and so his name will be remembered forever. Next, the dialouge is completely uninteresting and the character interaction was lame. Also, Orlando Bloom pissed me off some much not even he great sexyness didnât cover up his crappy acting. His character, Paris, was such winny bitch. It got so bad that everytime I saw his face I fastforwarded. Now you might think it just a good action movie but itâs not because of the slow and boringness of the rest of the movie the fight scenes were completely unfulfilling and felt extremely dull. I watched this movie on DVD so it might have that good in the theatres thing going for it. Basically, at the end of the movie I felt like it took less time to actually read the Iliad than sit and watch a 3 hour movie.
The Adlerian: I viewed the movie as an attempt to tell the story sans mythological content.
Colin: Spot on. which makes it pretty redundant. what is todays world obsession with âlack of contentââŚor âflimsy contentââŚcontent is semmingly secondary in a lot of films, might be one of the hazards of the film genre, time scales, big bucks over substance.
âIf you want the detials read a fucking bookâ - some hollywood ego
I thought it was at least better than just saying this movie sucks. Yeah I know what they were trying to do with it but it was still a lame movie. Now I wasnât arguing about what the movie was about all I meant was it had a good premese and the idea behind the movie was interesting but I felt it wasnât what it could be.
So, are you standing up for a mythological movie without mythological content? The story is mythology, whether it happened or not, I doubt the story matches the actual occurrances.
A simplistic killing machine is not an excuse for poor dialogue. There is a lot of character and interaction and emotion to Greek stories. To have a movie remove that is to neuter the story. Action movies are fun, but a pure good action movie need not be 3 hours long.
Gladiator was far from historical accuracy, but it at least could bind your attention. The dialogue was plenty good enough for an action movie. The scenes were compelling and you wanted to watch.
You want stories about people and honor, watch a Japanese movie! You have plenty of good ones to choose from.
And whatâs with the comment about going to high school? Not the best english in the original post, but we all donât have the hours of free time that you seem to. Lowering yourself to constantly attempting to insult other peopleâs intelligence to make arguments? Have fun with that.
Go inflate your post count some more where people might actually care how many times you can change your avatar a month.
ââŹĹSo, are you standing up for a mythological movie without mythological content? The story is mythology, whether it happened or not, I doubt the story matches the actual occurrances.ââŹÂ
ItââŹâ˘s an imagining of the events.
ââŹĹA simplistic killing machine is not an excuse for poor dialogue.ââŹÂ
Several scenes where taken right out of the Iliad.
ââŹĹAnd whatâs with the comment about going to high school?ââŹÂ
Usually one reads the Iliad and the Odyssey in high school. The OP (your girlfriend?) sounded like they never even heard of the story.
ââŹĹ Go inflate your post count some more where people might actually care how many times you can change your avatar a month.ââŹÂ
This is not in dispute it just could have been done better
That doesnât mean that itâs going to transfer well to a diferent media.
Iâm a sophomore in high school and I have heard of the story before but I have not read the book. All I was doing with the comparison between the lengths of the movie and the book was to exaggerate the length of the movie.
True. But it is still a mythological movie lacking mythological material. Isnât there something wrong with that?
Also true. Itâs a movie and shouldnât be 100% accurate, but the main contention is that what they put together was a somewhat interesting action movie with horrible dialogue and for the most part poor acting considering the cast. I canât remember the actorâs name right now, but he played Agamemnon, was good. But overall, it lacked in the non-battle scenes too much to make itâs length bearable.
Hahaha. No, certainly not my girlfriend. And the OP did in fact say this,
Which is at least a good clue that they had in fact read the Iliad. Maybe not, but at least a decent implication of such.
Again, hahaha. I will fully admit to being jealous of a good number of people. Envious of others. You are not on that list. And envy and jealousy if well placed, can be good motivational factors.
ââŹĹTrue. But it is still a mythological movie lacking mythological material. Isnât there something wrong with that?ââŹÂ
No, not really.
Perhaps the producers thought that the movie would play better without the deus ex happening all of the time.
I didnââŹâ˘t love the movie and especially hated the happy ending. I hated it beyond belief.
The thing that I disliked about your girlfriendââŹâ˘s review was that it was based on total ignorance and a complete lack of insight about the themes. Troy falls because of HectorââŹâ˘s indulgence of Paris and his lack of honor. So, ParisââŹâ˘ behavior was very important. The whole story was about different levels of honor, ethics, and courage.
Gecota, although youââŹâ˘re young and canââŹâ˘t be expected to know everything you might want to consider asking what a story is about before you trash it.
ââŹĹAgain, hahaha. I will fully admit to being jealous of a good number of people. Envious of others. You are not on that list. And envy and jealousy if well placed, can be good motivational factors.ââŹÂ
HmmââŹÂŚyouââŹâ˘re spending a lot of time on me.
I understood the theme and the story, how Parisâs behavior is important, and all that. I was fine with the story but, what I hated was how the movie was done. The problem I had with Paris was totally Orlando Bloom. He played the character the same way he played all his roles. I did ask my brother about the story but what my review was about how the movie was it should have been a good movie with the story and everything but lost something during the making of the movie.
I thought the film was mediocre. Not the kind of horrible where I shake my fist at the Gods, cursing, demanding my three hours back- just not terrific. Brad Pitt was surprising in the film, at least to me; I was surprised by how he bulked up for the role, and how well he played the badass. But at the same time, I donât think the Achilles he/the director presented was really convincing. For example, in the original Homer when Achilles wept with Hectorâs father, you believed it. But when Pittâs Achilles did so, I just didnât buy it.
The movie was overly long. Iâve got no problem with a long movie thatâs long for a reason; the extended LotR films were superb. No, Troy seemed long simply due to lack of good editing skill. Pacing is sometimes improved by what you add, but more often itâs aided by what you omit.
To me the dialog was anachronistic and not really appropriate- they didnât go for a period feel, and it seems to me that in ten years people will see Troy and view it as a product of the early 2000s. Thatâs to say, dated. The acting was adequate, given the weakness of the script, but not the best effort by any given actor.
Lastly, I didnât think the F/X were particularly compelling, either. Yes, I realize the days of getting a thousand extras together for a battle are long gone, replaced by a few mouse clicks (albeit at thousands of dollars per second). But most disconcerting is the prevailing opinion that it doesnât have to look real, just good enough to give the suggestion of reality. As if they mean to imply something and have us fill in the blanks. Thatâs great in a book, but falls a bit short in a film. Part of the failure is the perceived need to top each shot with ever more ludicrous spectacles. The CGI of today does some things well, but it has to be used judiciously, in moderation. Like salt in your broth, a little seasons but a lot overwhelms. Perhaps someday CGI will be good enough to replace actors, but until then producers and directors will have to learn to go back to basics and do some things the old fashioned way.
I can see why you say that. But what I meant is, âNot everything is about you.â Additionally, I then called you a fucker. Two separate statements, hence two sentences.
Of course, one word probably does not a sentence make. One person has already PMâed to correct my grammar.
( I know you love those emoticons! 
=D> 
)