Rating: 
Summary: High art compared to "Troy"
Review: It was interesting to read all the scathing reviews that criticised this movie because it was not entirely faithful to the Iliad. Well, having seen Troy (which many were eagerly awaiting as a "better" version), I have to say Helen Of Troy is much closer to Homer's classic than "Troy". Despite the big budget and special effects, Troy is a travesty! At least the mythological background is included in this movie (Helen of Troy), as is the correct ending showing Helen returning to her husband (in Troy, Menelaus is old and ugly, and killed off early in the movie, leaving Paris and Helen to elope at the end of the movie!!).
In the Iliad, Helen returns willingly to her husband and lives happily ever after - but this movie has a creative take on this, showing Helen returning to him, but telling him she can never love him. Rufus Sewell was superb as Agammemnon - much better than the portrayal of the same in "Troy", and all in all there was a lot more depth and exploration of the characters in this movie than in "Troy". I thought the casting was quite good (as opposed to Troy....Brad Pitt was so badly mis-cast as Achilles). I thought the portrayal of the love-struck Menelaus, who is willing to take Helen back despite everything, was good. Achilles was well cast, and truer to the Iliad than the shocking casting of Brad Pitt in the role. Overall a very enjoyable interpretation of the Iliad, and a thousand times better than "Troy".
Rating:
Summary: Quite Impressive
Review: Like most movies adapted from books or stories, film makers will take some liberties with the storyline and place their personal marks. What is on paper to be interpreted by the audience and what can tangibly be seen on a two-dimesnional screen carries with it a bit of logistical challenge when transferring from one medium to another. Natually there will be some changes. As long as there is the attempt to stay true to the tone of the original work, you can still carry the story as it was intended to be told. That being said, I think that this film was a very good depiction of the Trojan war. The director chose to center the theme around Helen and her effect on the men in this film. Her character is meant to be innocent and her spirit a free one. It is this quality that makes her unknowlingly so attractve. Helen slowly begins to realise her beauty is the cause of many troubles including her own unhappiness and soon learns the difference betwen lust and love. This is why she runs away with Paris to Troy, contrary to the notion that she was stolen. The Greeks seem to view it that way. Their prize possession was taken from them by their most hated enemy and what better catalyst to serve as Agamemnon's reason for war on Troy. Paris came to Sparta to talk peace, a result power hungry Amagemnon had no interest in. His desire for Troy is more than his desire for Helen. In this battle between lust and love, lust wins and brings havoc on all. The Gods and Goddesses are lauging again at their fateful mischief despite Cassandra's visions of warning. Nobody liked a naysayer anyway. The productions sets were pretty good, but the armor and battle sequences are not quite as impressive as we've seen in other movies. This is supposed to be the greatest battle of all time, but not much emphasis is placed on the battle at all. The acting, on the other hand, was very well done. There are lots of characters and names thrown around, familial relations here and there. It can get confusing if you're not familiar with the Iliad. Each character's personal agenda tied nicely into the storyline leading to the war on Troy. Rufus Sewell made a marvellous Amagemnon. I will admit Helen should have been played by someone with stunning beauty. Sienna Guillory is pretty and a bit on the thin side, but doesn't have that face that would launch a thousand ships. She does, however, capture Helen's innocence and sensual spirit. On the whole a good story telling movie and a must-see before watching the Brad Pitt version of Troy to get a clear background behind this great war.
Rating:
Summary: Effects not that good, Agammenon the best.
Review: This movie must be an Agammenon one, like the others reviews says that is not worth of be buyed, I think it is, maybe the other people prefer to watch only "Hollywood" stars as Brad Pitt, Orlando Bloom..., on the coming up movie, I'm not saying that this Helen of Troy movie is the best I have ever seen about Greek mythology, but it is indeed a must seen movie, this movie might seemed as a TV movie maybe, wich reminds me a movie that I saw some years ago, called Cleopatra with Timothy Dalton, same as this movie, a must seem movie, not great effects on it, but great performance on the cast.
Rating: 
Summary: Yes, It Takes Liberites With Homer but.....
Review: So what? We're talking greek mythology. Not ABSOLUTE historical fact. I loved every minute of it. The woman who played Helen is the most gorgeous woman I've ever seen. Long may she reign. I'm looking forward to the new big screen version. It will be interesting to compare the two versions.
Rating: 
Summary: Completely inaccurate and pathetic
Review: I cannot for the life of me understand why people enjoyed this movie. For someone who has studied Greek myth for nearly 20 years, it is pretty hard to please me, but this was just horrible in every way. To the reviewer who asked how we know what happened: because the myths are written a particulary way, the creative license taken here is far too great. Theseus and Polydeukes did not kill each other, Paris and Hektor did not fight one another, Akhilleus was not a third-rate wrestler who murdered Hektor without hand-to-hand combat. The producers obviously made this movie to villainize the Greeks and portray the Trojans as pure and innocent people. The license taken with Agamemnon was acceptable due to his character in myth *and Rufus Sewell did an excellent job, and apart from Rhy-Davies (who is always good) as Priam, the only decent actor in the picture* Helen was ridiculously miscast, as was Paris, Menalus, Akhilleus, and virtually every other character. If a director is going to make a historical, even legendary, picture, he has a responsiblity to stay somewhat true to the story. Gladiator took a great deal of license, but it did not center on a historical character or on traditional characters that have travelled down through the centuries in a way that they seem real to the modern mind. It is forgivable in Gladiator's case, not so in this film's. A great disappointment and I can only say I hope the writers and producers of this film are reprimanded greatly for their vast mistakes.
Rating: 
Summary: Very mediocre, bordering on bad
Review: The biggest problem with this movie is its budget. You cannot make an epic without spending a lot of money, and this suffers greatly from bad sets and bad costumes. Script problems: the screenwriters had obviously down their research but made bad choices about what to include on-screen. So, they did for example include the Theseus/Helen story (which is in the myth) but they didn't mention Andromache. I'm sure if Helen lived in Troy for 10 years she would meet Andromache. And the nudity was unnecessary and it wasn't in the myth. I think they added that to get viewers. They also altered Hector's personality and made Paris more noble than he is (although Paris did fight in the games before becoming the prince, he did not fight Hector, he fought another of Priam's sons--this son whose name I've forgotten marries Helen after Paris dies by the way--which they also didn't include). This movie has some of the worst fight scenes I've ever scene. Blurring will not take away from the fact that the actors have obviously not trained for this and the weapons look very fake. Achilles was very badly cast. Menelaus' character was a character the writers had obviously not decided on. It was incredibly sketchy and inconsistent. Overall, I'd say don't bother buying this. There are far too many problems with it to be a good movie. Troy (2004) will be much better than this. Just go watch that instead.
Rating:
Summary: Ugh.
Review: I hate this movie. The acting is bad, the characters were poorly portrayed, and it's totally inaccurate. Wasted money- don't buy it!
Rating:
Summary: terriable
Review: i have seen this movie.it is terriable.at first i wanna see a movie about troy before the mivie 'troy'. so i have seen it .it it
just waste of time.
Rating:
Summary: what does Troy have to do with this?
Review: As all movies do, this one also has both - positive and negative aspects:
Positive: Helene is really cute.
Negative: everything else. P.S. The way this movie portrays Achilles extends meaning of word STUPID.
Rating:
Summary: May Sienna Guillory launch a thousand DVDs!
Review: It's great to be able to watch the HELEN OF TROY miniseries without the constant commercials. Sienna Guillory, although occasionally resorting to Valley Girlese, overall gives a soulful performance in the title role. She's beautiful and sympathetic. Most of the rest of the performances are fine, especially Rufus Sewell. I did take issue with having the bald Joe Montana portray Achilles--Achilles shouldn't be portrayed as an one dimensional Bruce Willis clone. Hopefully, Brad Pitt will come closer to the mark in Warner Bros.' TROY. It will be interesting to see if Patrocles' relationship with Achilles is explored in any detail. The USA miniseries is good enough to hold my interest until TROY is released in 2004. By the way, those who liked the miniseries should check out the coming DVD of Robert Wise's 1956 version of HELEN OF TROY.
| 
