Absolutely Brilliant!

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

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.

Unlike the epic TROY, which spent much time and money recreating the spectacle of the Trojan War with CGI, the emphasis here is on the political ambitions and prophecies leading up to the start of the siege of Troy. Rufus Sewell as Agamemnon gives a performance (as the man who would conquer Troy) which eerily evokes Oliver Reed at his sinister best, as he makes it clear that the romance of Helen and Paris was merely a convenient excuse for the events that followed, and that the war came out of his own thirst for conquest. Sienna Guillory is attractive as Helen, but her role is rapidly reduced to that of a bystander in the great events that swirled around her. And the film makes clear its logic about this: how could a woman be responsible for a war in a time when even princesses were chattels of the royal houses to be auctioned off in marriage for political gain? As it deals more intimately with its characters and looks more closely at social power structures and gender roles of the period, this film is much more interesting as a human drama than the rather empty spectacle TROY.

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.

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?