Rating: 
Summary: Better than TROY !
Review: This movie, although its less glamorous than the new Troy with Brad Pitt, is closer to the truth story. Menelaus and Agamemnon don't die in Troy just because they are the bad guys!!! Hello!!! Who wrote the script to the movie called TROY anyway? He was having a bad trip, I can tell you that! The only negative point in HELEN OF TROY is the almost bad acting and Achiles was bald??? C'mon give me a break! Better shoot some nice horror b-movies guys! You should better read the real thing!
Rating: 
Summary: Very well put together
Review: I quite like this TV-Movie version of the story of Troy, and I'm glad I viewed it before watching the blockbuster version with Brad Pitt. Apparently this version is far more accurate and more closely aligned with Homer's Iliad and it gives a much better background in the story of Paris and Helen. Significant changes were made in the Brad Pitt version of the battle of Troy which made it hard for me to accept. However, since the actors are all good loking and the costumes are historically accurate, I'm willing to forgive this minor slight. Watch this version as well to compare the difference. The battle scenes and special effects are B-rated compared to Peterson's version of Troy, but the story is more accurate and the acting is much better.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad Remake.
Review: This remake is about 100 times worse than the original version.
The photography is claustaphobic, the acting is amateurish, the
editing is poor, the dialog is empty-headed, the special effects are phoney-looking, the directing is confusing, and the
plot is aimless.
The biggest disappointment is Helen. This actress is an anorexic deadpan bleach-blond with a thick foreign accent,
an airhead, to use modern terminology. This is definetly not
the face to launch a thousand ships.
Rating:
Summary: MORE ACCURATE THAN "TROY"
Review: I have read "The Illiad", and thought "Helen of Troy" was MUCH more accurate to the original than the Brad Pit movie "Troy".
The storyline and plot is much more detailed.
I enjoyed this movie alot. But I also enjoyed "Troy".
Watch them both and you will have fun contrasting the two (or three if you include the book).
It's like seeing the same thing from a different point of view.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie
Review: To all of you who writes and thinks that you are unable to see the beauty of Helen... Too bad. Thats not the point of any movie so what makes you think that it could possibly be the point in this particular one. Helen of Troy (2003) is a great movie because of it's extremely good way of teaching a little history without being boring. And then again... Helen of Troy is kinda like Romeo & Juliet. A love story but still a war story. Next time you review a movie remember movies like Helen of Troy and Romeo & Juliet doesen't need an epic war scene.
Rating:
Summary: How Ghastly
Review: I intially started watching this with very low expectations and was disappointed. Even excusing the deviations from the original, this movie had serious problems. In general the script was poor, the special effects were lacking, and the acting was horrendous (with a few minor exceptions). Helen was very disappointing. I just can't figure what about her is so beautiful as to warrant the launching of one ship...let alone a thousand.
The most redeeming part of the movie is the marine landing scene when the ships reach Troy. One of the soldiers was hit by an arrow but I swear there was a banana peel on the shore...we re-wound it three times, just to make sure.
Rating: 
Summary: Mixed emotions from Greece
Review: Helen of Troy is a movie that brings to life the director's version of how he would have liked Homer's story of the Trojan War to have been. The movie does not faithfully follow the original, rather it is INSPIRED by Homer's Iliad, and therefore has a great deal of flaws and deviations from the original story. One could list one after another the discrepancies that occur, and for those that have read/studied the Iliad, it is common knowledge that the list would be very long indeed, some will say too long...
From this very long list there are several important alteration such as when Achilles fought and killed Hector following Patroklos' (Achilles' close friend's) death at the hands of the Trojan prince. Patroklos is nowhere to be seen in the movie!!! Achilles himself is played by an actor who is totally bold (???), when according to the Iliad he should be blond, not to mention that he has the appearance of a northern barbarian (???) rather than that of a Greek hero. Even though this is Hollywood and one should be more flexible and lenient when dealing with adaptations, one should also keep in mind that this is the Iliad in question and not some modern twentieth century novel.
In addition, all throughout the film one gets the feeling, on and off, that they are watching an extended episode of Xena as a result of the Xena-style setting, action and at times even Xena-style dialogues.
Moreover, ALL the actors after 10 YEARS of WAR had not changed one bit from the opening scenes. They looked EXACTLY as they did at the beginning of the film!
Furthermore, the deaths of Paris and Hector as well as the fall of Troy instead of being played out in full, are crammed together in a few minutes at the end.
Lastly, special emphasis must be made on the point that the Trojans are Greeks too, with the same language, the same gods, the same names etc, which is another thing that the movie does not stress enough, leaving relations between the combatants vague/open to any theory.
Therefore, the only real problem arises when the majority of people (and most people have NOT read the Iliad) who see the movie start believing that events happened the way the movie depicts/portrays and not the way they actually did occur according to Homer. Consequently, due to the distortion of Homer's work, the movie poses a very serious danger of producing armies of misinformed people who think they know Homer when they really do not. That is NOT good!
On the positive side, the movie is action packed, the costumes are excellent, and the special effects are very good! The acting, however, is average. John Rhys-Davies, and the rest of the actors have done a fair job of providing an entertaining film. The actors playing Menelaus and Achilles could not have been more off. Helen (Sienna Guillory) was very good looking and had her share of "light", nude scenes, but acting is not her really strong point...
Hopefully, more movies will be made set in the ancient times, as the demand for them is definitely there.
Rating:
Summary: The worst Helen ever
Review: This is by far the worst film on the war of Troy I have ever seen. The idea of showing a little of Helen's side of the story might have been interesting, if only they had chosen another actress. Sienna Guillory is definitely not the most beautiful woman on the earth. Marsden's Paris is dull, Hector almost non existent and Achilles is so fat he can hardly move (should that be a half god?).
The real jewel of the film (which is disgracefully not enough to save the day) is Rufus Sewell as King Agamemenon. His acting is brilliant and touching; the sacrifice Agamemnon's daughter Iphigenia is a masperpiece of acting.
A real pity that it is the only one.
Rating:
Summary: Much better than Troy!
Review: When I saw Troy in the theatre, all I could do is compare it to this mini-series, now on DVD. Troy was way over the top in every aspect, but Helen of Troy was progressive and subtle in the cinematics and acting. I much preferred it to the Hollywood version.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad acting
Review: I was disappointed in this film, not for the story of course, but for the lousy acting. Helen, the main character, was totally unbelievable and distracted me from being able to enjoy the film. The rest of the actors were fine, but the main character kind of ruined it for me. I guess one bad apple can spoil the bunch.
|
