There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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.

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.

Having seen both this movie and "Troy," I much preferred this one. It is closer to the Iliad and more probable historically. I know that "Byzantium" is anachronistic, but I imagine it was easier than trying to explain to the punters who the Hittites were.There were a few creaky plot devices (the churlish way in which Achilles kills Hector, for example), but at least it accords with the Greek legends better than "Troy" - the sacrifice of Iphigeneia isn't sidestepped; Agamemon is murdered in revenge for this, rather than for any thing else the swine does; Menelaus and Helen actually survive, as we learn from the Odyssey.On the other hand, "Troy" makes a better fist of the Battle for the Ships, and Achilles' boiling anger over the death of Patroclus. Both film treat this with kid gloves, because of the homosexual element (If I remember, Patroclus doesn't even appear in "Helen"), but the Iliad's first word is "wrath," making it clear that this is an essential element of the story.Finally, even though both movies tend to be anachronistic on armour, that in "Troy" was, if I remember, a bit more accurate, at least for everyone else but Achilles. Oh, and why do the producers assume that the Minoan style of column (supporting the roof) was general everywhere?

The film "Helen of Troy" is based on the fictional epic novel, "The Iliad", which has been viewed by many to be the greatest war story ever told. It begins with Paris, a young Trojan Prince who was visited by three goddesses asking him to decide on who of them was the fairest. He chose Aphrodite, the goddess of Love and Beauty, when she offered to make the most beautiful woman in the Aegean fall in love with him. She showed him Helen, and from then on, Paris and Helen were destined to meet. Some time later, the Prince was sent by his father, King Priam of Troy, to make peace with the Greeks. Helen was married to King Menelaus of Sparta then, but that didn't stop her from sailing away with the man she truly loved. That started the war between the Trojans and the Greeks, and it lasted even longer because of the men's selfish pride. Agamemnon, Menelaus' older brother, was High Chief of the Greeks and also the most ruthless. In the end, his wife Clytemnestra killed him for causing her sister, Helen, so much pain.I really enjoyed the movie and I found the scenes highly interesting. But even then, once compared to the modern film "TROY", it does not excel much in the battle scenes. For me this is understandable considering the low efficiency of productions during that time as opposed to the outstanding technology we have now. The acting was also commendable, but still also with less emotion than of the actors in "TROY". I think that over-all, the film was good and it covered all the details that were necessary to maintain the quality of the book. Out of a rating of 5 to 1, 1 being the highest, I would give "Helen of Troy" a 2. This is not only because of the great entertainment and information it provided me but also because that's the rating it deserves.