Robert J. Maxwell The story is pretty well known, at least in some sectors of social space, so I'll just make some observations as I watch this longish version through.Briefly: It's about 1200 BC. Paris, a young man of Troy, falls in love with, Helen, the wife of a Greek king and runs off with her to his home. This annoys the Greeks. They launch a thousand ships and wage a ten-year war against the walls of Troy. The Trojan forces include the noble Hector. The Greeks have Achilles and the wily Odysseus. The war is brutal but finally ends, although the in-family tsuris persists through the post-war period.First, half an hour in, I haven't seen anything in the wardrobe or weapons that was disturbing but I'm not a historian. True, some of the armor looks left over from a movie about the Roman Empire, and in battle the swords don't look like Greek choppers but like the Roman gladius, but it doesn't poison the story. What I definitely could not wrap my head around was Achilles -- a muscle-bound, bald-headed street thug who would have fit very well into one of Cinecitta's sword-and-sandal epics starring Steve Reeves from the 1950s or, better yet, into a modern urban action movie. All that's missing are the barbed wire tattoos. There have been complaints that it wanders too far from Homer's original but so far it resembles the original story, at least the translation I read years ago. I doubt anyone know what the ACTUAL original was like. Homer's version was written down hundreds of years after the event. And I understand it was all memorized oral folklore. The iambic pentameter was a mnemonic device. If the orator screwed up the meter he'd know he'd made a mistake, but it's easy to imagine that improvisation to bring back order was a common event. I doubt that Homer hewed to closely to the hundreds-of-year-old original tale, but then there might not have been that much left for Homer to hew to.At least this one has the gods and goddesses mucking around with things, although not much. Paris gets the golden apple for choosing Aphrodite as the most beautiful of three competing contestants, and she backs Paris in the Trojan War. Next time he should be a bit more pragmatic and choose Athena. Even if she had a face like the rear end of an International eighteen wheeler, she knows about war. Nothing here though about Aphrodite back Troy in the war. There are also complaints about Helen not being worth a war because she's not as bewitchingly desirable as she should be, but in my opinion she looks just fine and would do in a pinch. She's spirited, slender and blond, with a piping voice, a la gamin, and looks vaguely French. If you watch it, you'll see what I mean.I have no memory of Paris on his first visit to Troy being pitted in games against the finest Trojan warriors. (He beats Hector in a knife fight in the arena.) Maybe the scenes were added to juice up the story with more action and to turn Paris into more of a hero, or it may be that my brain is turning to tofu, in which case I will leave it for analysis to the American Culinary Institute. I don't recall that Helen was first kidnapped by the agents of one of the Greek kings either. It looks like padding. But the honorable kidnapper is played by Stellan Skarsgaard whose work I've always admired, whether his character is good or evil. The other performers who stand out are John Rhys-Davies as King Pryam, James Callis as the sneaky Agamemnon, and Rufus Sewell as the honest Menelaus.In the end, only the bare bones of the original remain. We hardly see Odysseus. There is no Patroclus. Achilles never has a hissy fit over his girl friend being taken away. But there IS the Trojan Horse, Achilles dragging Hector's body around the walls of Troy, Paris killing Achilles with an arrow to the heel, and Cassandra's prophecies being realized. A revenge incident is tacked on at the end to provide a sense of justice prevailing. The underhanded Agamemnon is murdered in his bath by his jealous wife, Clytemnestra. But that's from a different play altogether. It's like taking a shoe horn and working the Doolittle raid into the climax of the wretched "Pearl Harbor," only there to provide a feeling of justice having been done.I kind of enjoyed it. The production values are high, the use of CGIs is modest and effective, the photography isn't too gloomy or in high contrast or tinted a ghoulish green, and the editing is sane and classical instead of lightning fast and disorienting. It's a sad story but a very human one. The only characters with truly out-sized flaws are Agamemnon and Achilles. All the other characters are shown as admirable in some way, or at least understandable.

Desertman84 Helen of Troy is a television miniseries based upon Homer's story of the Trojan War, as recounted in the epic poem, Iliad. It stars Sienna Guillory as Helen, Matthew Marsden as Paris, Rufus Sewell as Agamemnon, James Callis as Menelaus, John Rhys-Davies as Priam, Maryam d'Abo as Hecuba, and Stellan Skarsgård as Theseus. The film is placed in the early classical period rather than the correct early Iron Age; the Greeks are shown with post-Bronze Age classical hoplite dress and arms. It also focuses more on the life of Helen herself rather than simply the Trojan War. The entire first half deals with Helen's life before Troy, and includes a number of mythological facts that other versions either gloss over or omit, such as Helen's abduction by Theseus and the actual agreement of the Greek kings to use her marriage as their peace agreement.The TV movie was set in the 13th century B.C. It started when Helen, the Olympian-born, became a dazzlingly beautiful trophy wife of Sparta's King Menelaus. Unhappy in her "marriage",she yearned for the companionship of the gorgeous young man whom she had seen only in a vision: Paris, the Prince of Troy. As luck would have it, Paris managed to "abduct" Helen and spirit her off to his homeland, where she was welcomed by his father, King Priam, despite the portents of doom from Paris' foresighted sister, Cassandra. Meanwhile back in Sparta, King Menelaus, his honor besmirched, declared war on Troy, thus beginning a ten-year conflict that would culminate disastrously in the incident of the Trojan horse. All of which greatly pleased Menelaus' covetous brother, Agamemnon, who cannily exploited the war in order to emerge as King of the Aegean. The TV movie became more of a storytelling about Helen in the first half and an action film when there was a showcase of the Trojan War in the second half.There were a number of cinematic treatments of the Helen legend,a bit more sensational violent action scenes and a number of gratuitous but enjoyable nude scenes .However,despite of these scenes,the TV movie became somewhat dull as it lacks vitality and energy.Overall,it lacks appeal and entertainment due to the fact that it is short of elements in mystery and magic.

ayet_prettyinpink Last July 26 until the first week of August, we viewed the movie "Helen of Troy". This 175-minute version that was released in 2003 was produced by Adan Shapiro and was directed by John Kent Harrison. This movie of romance, adventure, drama and action was based on Homer's Iliad. It is a Greek epic that tackles on the Greek mythology, emphasizing on the war between the Greeks and the Trojans or the Trojan War wherein the great City of Troy fell. The war started when a lovely woman named Helen left of her Achaean husband, Menelaus, and ran away with a Trojan named Paris. This war lasted for ten years wherein mighty warriors fought, gods and goddesses participated, and lives were sacrificed and lost. In the film, I was stunned with the irony in the end of the story. Even from the beginning of the movie, I was eager to see the fall of the creepy Agamemnon. I always thought that he would be killed by another warrior or a god but I never saw it coming that Clytemnestra, his own wife whom he always looked down to, was the only person to kill him. It's so ironic that someone who was portrayed weak was the one to put down Agamemnon who has a strong personality.Overall, I love the movie but it's too morbid for me. I like the cast and how they portrayed their character except for a few. An example of which is Achilles. For me, he doesn't seem like an honored warrior but instead, more of a wrestler. Also, I was disappointed with the background. In some parts of the movie, it was unrealistic with the light colors. On the other hand, I like the part wherein everything stopped when Menelaus saw Helen in Troy. For me, it was a moving moment and I saw how Menelaus really perceives Helen. With this assessment, I say that it is a movie that is good enough to rent. I guess, it's just not my type of movie but it's worth seeing.

lessirk_11 English IV 38 Aug. 12, 2005 Krissel Tolentino IV-3From Homer to Me and You"Helen of Troy", a three-hour movie, produced by Adam Shapiro and Ted Kurdyla. It was based on the classic "Iliad", written centuries ago, yet was just released two years ago, year 2003. This clearly states how the far they were apart. It's a proof of how Homer's "Iliad" crossed time and still made its effect, a true definition of a classic literature.The "Iliad" started with the judgment of Paris. He made a choice out of the three goddesses and had Helen, as an offering. Their being together initiated the war between the Trojans and the Greeks and taking sides of the gods and goddesses. Agamemnon, the High King of Mycenae, ruled over the Greeks while King Priam and his sons ruled over Troy. Both sides' fate depended on the gods. War caused deaths and ruined lives of many. The war went on for 10 years until Odysseus thought of using a wooden horse to enter Troy's gates, which was said to be made of gold. This caught the Trojans by surprise. Every man died, leaving the women and children to be taken away with the Greeks. They wept and mourned while departing from the burning Troy.The plot was well developed. They interpreted in a realistic way and at the same time, being faithful to the text. A lot of themes can be reflected in the story. Examples are: the insignificance of women; power over greater power; powerful over powerless; and many more. The story was told in a man's perspective, Menelaus. He was a Greek leader and from whom Helen was taken from. I guess it would have been better if it was from a woman's point of view. A good one would be from Helen's point of view. Many people didn't like her because of her "selfish" acts. Giving her side of the story, would probably clear her name or better yet, side with her. Among all the characters, King Priam was my favorite. I admire how he made wise decisions and accepted Helen as a Trojan. He knew that by accepting Helen would mean war yet he understood that it Paris loved her and rejecting her wouldn't instantly stop the war. He portrayed the qualities of an ideal person; one who knows how to make decisions and one who keeps his word.The screenplay was amazing. The actors and actresses did well in representing each uniquely ancient character. The superb acting was, of course, combined excellent lighting and sound effects. Though the story was antique, the script made its way to every viewer's heart and soul. All these wouldn't be possible without the director, Ronni Kern. I am sure he is one proud guy for this. The movie could be given an Emmy's award. It is so remarkable for an old story to be interpreted in way that anybody could understand. They also somehow passed to us Homer's feelings for writing the "Iliad". For the movie "Helen of Troy", I am rating it with four out of five. It was a great movie but I think, it could still be improved…or another interpretation could be better. For every experience, there's a lesson or thought to be learned. With that: for every movie, there's a way of letting that thought get through the viewer's deeper understanding.