PDA

View Full Version : Troy



RooJay
05-13-2004, 08:18 PM
Great story! Looks to be a great flick.
I noticed that no one had started a thread yet, and since I'll be seeing it tonight I thought I'd go on ahead and do just that.
With such a great cast - Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom, Rose Byrne, Bryan Cox, Peter O'Toole, Brendan Gleeson, Sean Bean - could they really go wrong? :D

scruffziller
05-14-2004, 06:13 AM
I heard it is really bad.

Kidhuman
05-14-2004, 07:47 AM
To Me Mr. Pitt doesnt look like he can pull this off. But we shall see.

evenflow
05-14-2004, 08:15 AM
I am a huge fan of the story and I am looking forward to the movie.

QLD
05-14-2004, 09:42 AM
I have a bad feeling about this one.

Exhaust Port
05-14-2004, 10:16 AM
I never was really thrilled with Pitt but that changed after I saw Ocean's Eleven. I think this story can make for a great picture so I'm hoping they can pull it off. Are there any early reviews of this movie out yet?

mrmiller
05-14-2004, 10:22 AM
I plan on seeing it tonight as well. This should be a better moive for Bana than the Hulk was. I also was not a big fan of Pitt until Oceans 11 and Fight Club, so now I will go with different expectations. After the disaster that was Van Helsing, I'm looking forward to this "Big" movie.

=MATT=

Jedi_Master_Guyute
05-14-2004, 12:52 PM
I read somewhere that they changed part of the history for the film, so if anybody figures out what was changed please relay it for i'm very curious.

I dunno about this one though. I might catch it this weekend, but we'll see. :D

James Boba Fettfield
05-14-2004, 02:47 PM
Wolfgang's been disappointing with his past few films.

I dont' see this taking over my favorite Wolfgang film, Das Boot, but it looks to be good.

JediTricks
05-14-2004, 07:19 PM
I have heard that they tried to pack too much of the war backstory into this film, trying to tell an entire decade's tale in under 4 hours (even the Iliad didn't try to tell the whole story), while also making it character-driven so you end up with no really singular area or person to hang the film on for very long before it changes gears and pushes characters out of the picture for long periods of time. I personally don't feel any compulsion to see this film at all, and that's exacerbated by the fact that I'm distrustful of Warner Brothers more than ever lately.

derek
05-14-2004, 08:19 PM
i saw it and really liked it. i'm not to familiar with greek mythology, except for "clash of the titans" stuff.......i'm familiar with the myth of achilies, helen of troy and the trojan horse and such, but couldn't tell you what was changed from the book.:)

take christopher lee's advice when watching the film: "this is the movie, not the book" as he advised LOTR book nerds. :D

if you like braveheart/gladiator type films, you'll like this one.

brad pitt plays darth maul with a concience and some dialogue, eric bana is great, and the film's only real good guy. orlando bloom plays a sissy boy who causes all the trouble, but turns into legolas at the end. ;)

overall, it's a good movie. well worth the price of admission.:)

i left the movie with three things in mind: brad pitt can fight, orlando bloom plays a sissy very well .......and eric bana's movie wife is very HOT!!! :nerv:

2-1B
05-16-2004, 01:19 AM
I enjoyed watching this as well.

derek, I came away with the opposite eval of Andromeche - the actress (Saffron Burrows) is a hottie in her own right . . . but she was very much overshadowed IMO by Diane Kruger as Helen and Rose "Dorme" Byrne as Briseis.

Brad Pitt was alright but to me the real hero was Eric Bana. Out of the "3 hunks" in the cast, I thought he was by far the best actor. Orlando Bloom, MEH on him. Yeah, Legolas was cool and his character in Pirates was alright but this kid has lost his charm with me.

Peter O'Toole easily outdoes Richard Harris in the "old man crust" department.

Brian Cox was deliciously sleazy and he made for a perfect on screen brother to Brendan Gleeson.

Oh, and Julian "General Veers" Glover was in the movie, too !

derek
05-16-2004, 04:46 PM
saffron burrows.......i knew i'd seen her somewhere before, in jaws 5,....... i mean "deep blue sea"! ............i don't know caesar, helen was cute(she's no agnus skinner, though), but man, i'd fight eric bana for saffron's hand any day! :D

i'm suprised there hasn't been much activity in this thread. :confused: i went and watched troy again today. :crazed: not the best movie ever made, but way better than van helsing. lol

2-1B
05-16-2004, 04:50 PM
I also thought it would be abuzz (is that how it's spelled ? :confused: ) with lots of posting, positive or negative.

I'm glad they left the gods out of this movie. Of course, the people all TALK about the gods and that's cool - I'm just glad they don't SHOW the gods interfering as Homer wrote . . . I mean, the way this movie was made, it feels like it really COULD have happened. :)

Turbowars
05-16-2004, 07:56 PM
Great film. I thought Brad made a good warrior, I'm sure the ladies will like it. It was a bit long, but is to be expected with this kind of film. Bloom plays a good young idiot that is in love and really is why the whole battle was fought. Man look what a woman can do to a guy.:p

mrmiller
05-16-2004, 10:14 PM
I thought this was a good one as well, much better than Van Helsing. It's a big action epic, that also keep hold of the characters and emotion. Hector as the prince who's life (or death) held the ballance of Troy and it's peoples inspiration in contrast to Achillies who also is the leader and inspiration of the Greeks. We see Hector as the relectuant hero, who goes to war because he has too and for the love of his country. Pair that with Achillies and his thirst for fame and greatness that drives him, and you have a both entertaining and emotional movie. Well done.

The only thing that I had a hard time was with Achillies character development. At times you didn't know if you should root for him or not, then I think it took away from the impact of the ending where you just didn't care as much. Bana was great as Hector, and probably the best part of the movie, but I thought the casting was good all around- even Pitt. The Kings were excelent, as were the (very few) women cast.

Matt's movie grades
Van Helsing C-
Troy A
Comming next week.... Shrek 2

=MATT=

Hellboy
05-17-2004, 12:48 AM
I liked this film. I wasn't really familiar with the subject matter in much detail so most of the story was pretty new to me. The acting was great all the way around and I agree with those of you who felt Eric Bana stole the show. The supporting cast was especially strong with great preformances by Brenden Gleeson, Brian Cox and Sean Bean. Pitt made for a convincing and somewhat likeable Achilles, which was interesting because you're not sure if you should like the guy or not, kind of a Jango Fett type character. Strangely at times I thought Saffron Burrows greatly resembled Connie Nielson in "Gladiator."

The battle scenes were great, I really loved the scene where Achilles and his men stormed the beach ahead of everyone else and the way they used their shields to advance their position. Achilles fighting style was pretty sweet to watch too and that warrior he took out at the beginning of the movie was freakin huge. :crazed:

If I had anything negative to say it would be the somewhat simplistic story and at times the movie seemed to hit a few slow points. It didn't have the emotional impact of "Gladiator" or "Braveheart" but I did find myself getting a bit of that feel during the duel between Hector and Achilles. Not a big deal but I was also surprised, considering the type of battles that were being waged, at how watered down most of the violence felt.

Overall a good movie and worth checking out in the theaters just don't expect it to be as epic as you might think.

Exhaust Port
05-21-2004, 09:25 AM
I give Troy a B-

I'm not familiar with the orginal story which probably is why I gave the movie a B. Talking to those that know the Odyssey they really were disappointed with the movie as the movie took some extreme liberties with who lived and died. With that being said, I liked the epic feel of the movie. The scenery was shot very nicely and the battles were laid out quite nice with only a few shots that were too jumbled as they attempted to show the "fog of battle."

I would recommend it especially if you don't know the story.

stillakid
05-21-2004, 05:18 PM
I thought this was a good one as well, much better than Van Helsing.


Why compare it to Van Helsing? Besides them coming out close to one another, what on Earth (or beyond ;) ) do they have in common that would justify a comparison?

derek
05-21-2004, 08:26 PM
Why compare it to Van Helsing? Besides them coming out close to one another, what on Earth (or beyond ;) ) do they have in common that would justify a comparison?

becasue "troy" was an OK movie that didn't totally suck. lol

i saw "mean girls" today, and it was better than van helsing as well. :p

hey stillakid,

i've got a question for you:

do you think your bias towards a particular movie may be affected because you or someone you know may have worked on it? ;)

Turbowars
05-21-2004, 09:50 PM
LOL, good question. Crunchy Nugg comes to mind.

mrmiller
05-22-2004, 12:23 AM
Why compare it to Van Helsing? Besides them coming out close to one another, what on Earth (or beyond ;) ) do they have in common that would justify a comparison?

Because it was the previous movie I saw, the one that is supposed to kick off the big summer movies...are you a Van Helsing apoligist? I was just comparing it to the last "big event" movie I saw the week before, that's all. Don't take it so personally. Besides, I did't say Van Helsing was horrible, I just said Troy was better. :p


The one thing that did take away from Troy, was the LOTR movies. I fell that Peter Jackson did a much better job in the big battle scenes of LOTR than were done in Troy. The battles were still good, but the LOTR ones seemed to be better at focusing on specific aspects of the battles amid all the confusion of the sheer size of the battle. Some of that seemed to be lost in the big Troy battles, where it was more like a one on one scene or just mass carnage, and not individual aspects of the entire battle. (at least that comparison should make Stellakid happy ;) )

=MATT=

stillakid
05-22-2004, 01:35 AM
becasue "troy" was an OK movie that didn't totally suck. lol

i saw "mean girls" today, and it was better than van helsing as well. :p

hey stillakid,

i've got a question for you:

do you think your bias towards a particular movie may be affected because you or someone you know may have worked on it? ;)


No, no bias. I know it's easier to think that way when someone disagrees with you, but sorry to disappoint. I rather enjoyed the film and at the same time recognize the problems it had. It's a skill that more than a few people don't seem to have. :D

As far as the "comparison" goes, it would be like me saying, "boy, I really enjoyed my chicken pot pie for dinner tonight. It was much better than that bucket o' popcorn I stuffed in my face while I was watching Troy earlier this afternoon." :rolleyes: I just don't get it. What if I just got done seeing Bowling For Columbine right before seeing Troy? Wouldn't that comparison seem a bit odd? :confused:

2-1B
05-22-2004, 02:11 AM
I saw "Jenna Loves Kobe" tonight and it was much better than "The Passion of the Christ."

Exhaust Port
05-22-2004, 08:10 AM
I did notice Brad Pitt wearing a cast on his right foot in one scene. Did he break it during filming or something?

2-1B
05-22-2004, 02:28 PM
Yep -- I read that they had to halt production while his ankle healed up.

Heh, I think he messed up his Achille's Heel or Tendon or something.

Pendo
05-26-2004, 01:15 PM
Troy was an awful film! Putting aside the bad acting and continuity errors, it's the story that really destroys this movie.

Archilles is that main characer but is made out to be an arogant t**t at the beginning of the movie, meaning the audience don't like the character all through the film. I hated his character, and felt no emotion when he died. The mythology of the character also was not explained, about the River Styx or his heels.

Another bad point about the movie, apart from Brian Cox's character (Agamemnon), the Greek army are not portrayed as "bad guys", they are shown as honorable and decent soilders who would die for their country. This is very confusing, I didn't know if I sould be on the side of the Greeks who also have the main character Archilles, or if I should be supporting the Trojans. This meant I felt no emotion throughout the film :(.

The music was also VERY disapointing, and also did not portray any emotion.

Very disapointing movie, but there was a few good things, these being Eric Bana, Brian Cox and Peter O’Toole.

PENDO!

Bobajames
05-27-2004, 05:28 AM
I agree with you Pendo, the music on this movie was completely dissapointing. It seemed to be generic "epic battle" music. I was also confused about who to support. Going into the movie, I had vague memories about the basic storyline (since it had been so long since i read the book) but remembered Achilles' little swim when he was a baby. None of that happening here.
Also, ::::Possible Spoiler Don't Read If You Haven't Already Read the Book:::: when Achilles dragged Hector's body on the back of the carriage, did you feel that was played down a bit from what Homer wrote? It just didn't seem like he humiliated Hector as much as i remember from the story... maybe just because i haven't read it in a while.

derek
05-27-2004, 05:03 PM
This is very confusing, I didn't know if I sould be on the side of the Greeks who also have the main character Archilles, or if I should be supporting the Trojans.

ultimately, i think this was an anti-war film, and that's the message i think the writer was putting forth.

achilies had numerous lines referencing this, like when he asked brian cox's character if he'd like to fight, when he scolded cox for having someone else fight his battles for him, and when cox said he's sacrifice 40,000 men to take troy.

the writer was trying to get across an anti-war mentality, i think, and used cox's war-monger character to get his point across.

as who you should support, it's not a football game. lol of course the trojans were the good guys, but that dosen't necessarly make the greek soldier a bad guy, just their leader and his brother were the real bad guys.


Archilles is that main characer but is made out to be an arogant t**t at the beginning of the movie, meaning the audience don't like the character all through the film. I hated his character, and felt no emotion when he died. The mythology of the character also was not explained, about the River Styx or his heels.

maybe we saw different films, or your "expectations" of what achilies should be were different that you wanted, but he wasn't any worse than anakain from episode 2. he was a second-hander and mercernary who evolved into an anti-war advocate/one woman man.......quite the character development if you ask me. ;)
......and i don't think the mythology of achilies needed to be explained. i kinda liked leaving the theatre wondering which arrow killed him. was it the shot to the ankle, or the three to the chest. :confused:


Troy was an awful film! Putting aside the bad acting and continuity errors, it's the story that really destroys this movie.

i had no problem at all with any of the actors performances. who was doing the "bad" acting? ......oh, i've read a lot of orlando bloom bashing on other forums, but i'll chalk that up to jealousy more than anything else.

you had a problem with the story? what did you want? episode 3? :rolleyes:
van helsing? :crazed:

again, this was an anti-war film, featuring characters who would use any excuse to go to war, and use anyone to fight their battles for them...simple enough. maybe you were expecting something different? :cool:

Pendo
05-28-2004, 12:38 PM
ultimately, i think this was an anti-war film, and that's the message i think the writer was putting forth.

achilies had numerous lines referencing this, like when he asked brian cox's character if he'd like to fight, when he scolded cox for having someone else fight his battles for him, and when cox said he's sacrifice 40,000 men to take troy.

the writer was trying to get across an anti-war mentality, i think, and used cox's war-monger character to get his point across.

as who you should support, it's not a football game. lol of course the trojans were the good guys, but that dosen't necessarly make the greek soldier a bad guy, just their leader and his brother were the real bad guys.
I agree that it is perhaps an anti-war message, but it did not work in the movie. An "epic" movie of this kind needed a clear good and bad side, like The Lord of the Rings does, and I think I got more anti-war vibes from LOTR than I did from Troy.


maybe we saw different films, or your "expectations" of what achilies should be were different that you wanted, but he wasn't any worse than anakain from episode 2. he was a second-hander and mercernary who evolved into an anti-war advocate/one woman man.......quite the character development if you ask me. ;) But Anakin's character was already introduced as a likeable character in Episode I, if he wasn't introduced as a good guy nobody would like Anakin in the later movies and would not care about his fall to the dark side. Having Anakin introduced as a nice kid was vital to Episode I to make him likeable in Episode II.


......and i don't think the mythology of achilies needed to be explained. i kinda liked leaving the theatre wondering which arrow killed him. was it the shot to the ankle, or the three to the chest. :confused: His mythology needed explaining, without it the audience (who don't know the story) have no idea WHY he was shot in the heel, it would just seem like a pointless thing to put into a movie. His character and the story would have been much stronger with Archilles background in it, and it only needed to be a 2 minute prologue at the beginning of the movie.


i had no problem at all with any of the actors performances. who was doing the "bad" acting? ......oh, i've read a lot of orlando bloom bashing on other forums, but i'll chalk that up to jealousy more than anything else. IMO Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom were very flat. Orlando Bloom looks like he did a beter job in Calcium Kid, but I've not seen it so can't comment on how god/bad his acting was in that, but for his second "epic" he should have given an equal, or better performance than he did for LOTR.


you had a problem with the story? what did you want? episode 3? :rolleyes:
van helsing? :crazed: It wasn't more the story, but the portrayal of the story... or the butchering of the story :rolleyes:!


again, this was an anti-war film, featuring characters who would use any excuse to go to war, and use anyone to fight their battles for them...simple enough. maybe you were expecting something different? :cool:I was expecting something different. I was expecting a good epic, and all I got was a poor film, with bad actors and no emotion!

:)

PENDO!

James Boba Fettfield
05-28-2004, 12:50 PM
I'm inclined to favor the Greeks. That favor comes from reading the mythology and loving all the great stuff they did. From tricking Odysseus to coming along by threatening his son's life to abandoning a guy because a wound on his body started to smell. And who could forget the hilarity of the Greeks having to set sail two times because they were lost the first time out.

The Greeks seem like cool guys in the books I have been reading lately.

derek
05-28-2004, 04:02 PM
I was expecting something different. I was expecting a good epic, and all I got was a poor film, with bad actors and no emotion!

i'll disagree it was a "poor" film with "bad" acting. i really think bloom did a fine job. i've read numerous reviews from folks who hated paris so much, they're projecting that unjustly towards bloom, which indicated he may have done too good a job. and i think it took some courage on his part to play such a sissy....which he did really well.

i'll agree it wasn't the best film ever made, and that's probably because the writer had to squeeze so much stuff into a 3 hour film, they were bound to leave some stuff out.(this story probably could of better told as trilogy)

......and the lack of a central hero also hurt the film. i was expecting pitt's achilies to be the center of the film like maximus from gladiator or wallace of braveheart, but instead we got an ensamble flick.........but not by any means a bad movie, just not the best.(and definatley no LOTR) ;)