roshan Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I honestly dont understand how a movie based on such a good story can end up being so crappy. They removied most of the characters from the movie, and not only that, removed many scenes, and sanitized the ending and made it completely stupid and bastardized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Were you expecting something else? It had Brad Pitt and Eric Bana in it. Come on and grow a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oherror Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 All i had to see was that brad pitt was the main man and i knew it was crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Brad Pitt makes a good supporting actot but as a lead he isn't all that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roshan Posted July 10, 2004 Author Share Posted July 10, 2004 The movie didnt even have any good battles. Achilles was way overpowered. And yeah, I actually thought the movie would suck when I saw that there were only 4 or 5 characters in the movie posters. But then a bunch of retards told me it was good and I ended up being suckered into watching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 What was Brad Pitts last good movie? Was that Fight Club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roshan Posted July 10, 2004 Author Share Posted July 10, 2004 Fight club was ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerslave Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Yes, the movie did totally suck. Apart from the fact that it deviates a WHOLE LOT from the historical facts that Homer puts in his epic poem (heck in the movie Agamemnon is murdered outside Troy even before the end of the film! Not to mention that the movie presents the war as if it only took a couple of days to end, in contrast to the many years Homer says.) It also looks more like a Viking invasion than Greeks going to war . Most Greeks are portrayed as blond, completely bald, scarred, dark-skinned Grunts whose only desire is to shed more blood! Not to mention the "awesome" </sarcasm> Karate dueling scenes Brad Pitt took part in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roshan Posted July 10, 2004 Author Share Posted July 10, 2004 Yeah, the movie was as crappy as crap. A blond skinned greek? What the hell were the retards thinking? I was hoping for a modern version of the old "helen of troy" film with the new special effects and the modern higher standards of fight scenes and sound and backgrounds. Troy had none of that - it had nothing. They wasted a lot of time showing brad pits stupid face and playing framatic music while showing absolutely nothing when they should have been adding more relevant scenes such as the sacrifice of aggamemnons daughter etc. In the end the people of troy were slaughtered, the women taken as sex slaves, the kids including hectors son killed etc but they sanitized the ending by showing that everyone ecaped troy. ****ing hollywood filthy brainless **** moronic dogs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogo Ribeiro Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 What was Brad Pitts last good movie? Was that Fight Club? That, and Seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blarghagh Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Snatch was Brad Pitt's last good movie. It was made after Fight Club and Se7en. That being said, Troy was crappy. The only thing I liked was Brian Cox' performance. He's such a wonderfal villain actor. Did you know he played Hannibal Lecter once before Anthony Hopkins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phosphor Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I have mixed feelings about Troy. Some of it I liked, some of it I did not. It wasn't intended to be The Iliad, it was merely based upon it. I thought Pitt did a decent job, but Achilles wasn't a very full character. The removal of the supernatural took a lot away from that character, since his entire background is steeped in myth (being dipped by his mother into the the river Styx, hence his essential invulnarability, save for his ankle which is where his mother's hand held him). With that gone, there's not much to work with. Changing Patrolocus to his cousin rather than lover was a bit lame, I must say. Were he his lover, I think his human motivations would have been more compelling. I thought Bana's Hektor was superb, and Troy really was his film, not Pitt's. Cox's Agammemnon was brilliant as well, as expected. I hated that he was killed off though, there was no reason for that in the least. Which leads me to what I found to be the biggest flaw in the film, and that is the unsatisfactory fates of all the characters. No one had a good conclusion. Character omissions weren't too bothersome save for the absence of Cassandra. I think she would have been perfect for the film, particularly given Priam's sheer faith in the gods (O'Toole was a great Priam, too). In terms of historical accuracy, some areas were good (costuming in particular) and others not so good (coins on the eyes? coins weren't invented for another century or so). I rather liked that the Greeks were shown as very warlike, and not the stereotypical godlike fonts of philosophy and enlightenment. The mix of cultural backgrounds comprising the Greek army was a nice touch. Achilles being blond and rather Adonis-like is clearly intentional, designed to conjure an image of godhood. I also liked the fighting style they gave him; very athletic and reminiscent of Olympic games, hunting and war imagery seen painted on Grecian pottery. Again, it was obviously an intentional choice with a clear purpose. Other random thoughts.. I didn't care for how the time frame was so condensed. The siege of Troy was something like a decade in length, not a week as the movie suggested. Sean Bean's Odysseus was good, though I couldn't figure out what his character was about. He seemed at odds with Agammemnon's decrees, but supported him as he was obliged to, being a king of Greece. He seemed to not be supportive of the war, but then turned around and devised the horse, which didn't make a lot of sense. In any case, I'd very much like to see Bean play Odysseus in a similar film adaptation of the Odyssey. It was nice seeing Orlando Bloom get the crap beat out of him (I like Bloom, but still..) and though well cast as Paris, the bow thing was a bit much coming so soon after LOTR (though one of the aspects of the film true to the story). Troy really was a modern-day sword-and-sandal epic in the vein of the classics like Spartacus, Ben Hur, Quo Vadis and so on (films I love). If those films were made today, they'd be like Troy. I left the theatre a bit perplexed, ultimately. While I enjoyed the film it seemed a bit stilted and unsatisfactory. The more I think on it, the more I like it given that I have time to mull things over, and I'd like to see it again so I can confirm what I really think of the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'JN Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Why do people love antagonizing this movie? Read a review next time before you go to the theaters. I did, and that's why I knew it wasn't going to be a spot-on recreation of the events in the book (movie adaptations of epic novels generally aren't). The movie was pure Hollywood, but that's fine, because as long as it's entertaining, I get my money's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'JN Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I have mixed feelings about Troy. Some of it I liked, some of it I did not. It wasn't intended to be The Iliad, it was merely based upon it. I thought Pitt did a decent job, but Achilles wasn't a very full character. The removal of the supernatural took a lot away from that character, since his entire background is steeped in myth (being dipped by his mother into the the river Styx, hence his essential invulnarability, save for his ankle which is where his mother's hand held him). With that gone, there's not much to work with. They removed the gods and the supernatural from the movie because they wanted to present the war as a human conflict. Movies that have divine powers in the background moving things along often come across as ridiculous and poorly written. Here, what you see is what you get, and for the movie at least, that was nice. Achilles being an average mortal is a bit of a stretch. It's hard to believe anyone could be that good, but then again, people said the same thing about Secretariat. Changing Patrolocus to his cousin rather than lover was a bit lame, I must say. Were he his lover, I think his human motivations would have been more compelling. I'm sure Brad Pitt would have no trouble playing a homosexual, but I don't think the audience would respond to it all that well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phosphor Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I understand why they removed the gods, I think it was a good decision. The only downside to it is the Achilles character, who loses a fair bit via that removal. Had the gods been in the film, it would have been pretty cheesey and would ultimately have drawn critical comparison's to Clash Of The Titans. I'm not condemning the removal of the gods, nor am I perplexed regarding their absence. There's no doubt that Pitt would have no problems playing Achilles as homosexual; it was clearly a decision made elsewhere, likely for mass-audience appeal. Brad Pitt being hunky was a major seat-filler for the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roshan Posted July 10, 2004 Author Share Posted July 10, 2004 Homosexuality was very common in ancient greece and rome. Why would they want to omit that? What was ultimately the most disappointing part of the movie was the sanitized ending. I wanted to see some real butchery, enslavement, child slaughter, rape etc but in the end they made it too happy-happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phosphor Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Homosexuality was very common in ancient greece and rome. Why would they want to omit that? Do you really need to ask that? For mass appeal of course. If they had shown Achilles as gay, the movie would have tanked at the box office. What was ultimately the most disappointing part of the movie was the sanitized ending. I wanted to see some real butchery, enslavement, rape etc but in the end they made it too happy-happy. I thought the ending was quite miserable. Troy is rare in Trojan War movies in that it sides you with the Trojans rather than the Greeks. Often the Trojans are shown as the filthy degenerate enemy while Greece are the shining paragons of virtue and honour. Troy paints the Greeks as the warlike people they were at that time, and ultimately here the bad guys win. Troy burning while the Greeks rampage through the streets was quite powerful, but the killing of Agammemnon was weak. They must have done that to give the "good guys" some sense of victory, but it was a poor choice, both dramatically and historically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roshan Posted July 10, 2004 Author Share Posted July 10, 2004 Phosphor, the way I see it Troy tried to show the greeks as being not so bad by removing the war crimes they committed at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phosphor Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I think the allusions and inferences were very much in place. The ending sequences with the Trojans running through the burning streets while the Greeks rampaged through, combined with the rather malicious nature of Agammemnon defining the Greecian psyche, pretty clearly indicated that things were going to get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'JN Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Phosphor, the way I see it Troy tried to show the greeks as being not so bad by removing the war crimes they committed at the end. There was no such thing as a war crime during that time period. The victor could do as he pleased with those he captured or defeated. Violation of tradition was deemed far worse than things like murder or rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phosphor Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 There was no such thing as a war crime during that time period. The victor could do as he pleased with those he captured or defeated. Violation of tradition was deemed far worse than things like murder or rape. Precisely. And this outlook was wonderfully presented by Achilles tying Hektor's dead body to his chariot and dragging him back to the Greek camp, while the Trojans looked on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triCritical Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I decided I was not going to see the movie the second I saw a battle scene? What happened to the hoplite, the phalanx, or any integrity whatsoever in Hollywood? J/K... The opposite is sort of true for King Arthur, Hollywood critics slam it for rewriting the tail, when its the most historically accurate one so far. Doesn't say much considering, but that is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azarkon Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I understand that Troy was about making human history out of what was a classical tale about gods and destiny, but for such a tale to resonate you have to have believable, sympathetic characters. The only sympathetic character I found in Troy was Hector. Here was a man who for once is not so steeped in Virtue that he'd put honor above his brother's life, and yet at the same time he had the courage to fight and die for his country. In this respect he was human. Unlike Achilles, who I felt not a hint of sympathy for even to his death at the end of the film. And unlike Agamemnon, who was the very caricature of the mustache-twirling villains of old - and had not a hint of reedeeming qualities. There are doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitemithrandir Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I thought it was a fun movie. Certainly kept me awake. I thought the movie was a lot of fun, all those soldiers on the screen, the epic fighitng scenes, the moving soap operatic drama... heck it's no oscar material, but I definitely got my 6 bucks worth. Some of you have overly high expectations for an action slugfest that is Troy. Word economics To express my vast wisdom I speak in haiku's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phosphor Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 I thought the movie was a lot of fun, all those soldiers on the screen, the epic fighitng scenes, the moving soap operatic drama... That's exactly what it is. Troy is a 1960's style sword-and-sandal epic of the very best calibre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now