Troy

[DeadRunner]

well the movie will arrive next week in Portugal and i want to see it.
But the thing that i have afraid is the Brad Pitt char(aquiles) let see if they put some historial fact in the movie our choice to put aquiles inside of Troy.
but without these chapter i am totally jumping to see the movie

[The Scourge]

Looks OK ,but one thing bothered me with the trailer.
That bit where King Prim ,starts going on about all the reasons he's been to war ,and comes out with "Love may be the greatest reason of them all."
Have you ever heard such bollocks?
Let me get this straight.
His no good spoiled son ,wants to lay another mans wife ,and two lands have got to go to war for that?
You have got to be joking ,even Bush could come up with a better reason then that.
Still ,I'll probably see it anyway.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[Kongamato]

This is just silly. You are all going to hate it It's a Hollywood movie I warned you.

[The Scourge]

Imagine what must have been going through the average Trojans head as the Greeks sacked their city.
"Well thanks a fekking bunch Paris."
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif

[rory_20_uk]

The first scene at the start of the trailer with the number of triremes that are being used gives the first hint that history is there to base what is going to be an action-fest story upon - at least I hope so

I am not expecting anything more than a good old jaunt with many unimportant people getting killed so someone can get their leg over...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Lazul]

what? hey screw history, this movie isnt about History its about a great story...Im not gonna sit in the chinema and get anoyed about historical facts. Im gonna get a hardon eveytime there is a violence.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[hrvojej]

I am really looking forward to the movie, but I guess I'll end up being disappointed. As someone who's read the Iliad several times, I would really like to see it faithfully represented on screen, but what can you do.

First gripe: Agamemnon and Menelaus are two old guys even before they embark on the trip. They should be in their prime, and not have any grey hairs or such. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[JAG]

I am looking forward to it, but I expect alot of women to be in the cinema drooling - I mean Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom. I don;'t expect it to relate to history at all, what with Hollywoods track record, but it will no doubt be a good action film.

[monkian]

They'll probably leave out the whole Achilles being homosexaul part too.

[Lazul]

hehe what? he was gay?... well thats something i didnt know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif

[frogbeastegg]

Quote[/b] (monkian @ May 11 2004,10:21)]They'll probably leave out the whole Achilles being homosexaul part too.
But of course According to the reviews I have read he gets to keep Briseis instead. Patroclus is just some poor sap who dies.

I also heard that the ending is different, it sounds like Paris and Helen escape together to live happily ever after while everyone else dies or is enslaved.

I think I will skip this film, if they have altered the original story so much there is nothing interesting about it.

[DeadRunner]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif
One thing is movies withoul historic link but make that to a Historical story (i hope this movie dont stay like that about Attila http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif )

[monkian]

Quote[/b] (Lazul @ May 11 2004,10:33)]hehe what? he was gay?... well thats something i didnt know http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif
He was a Greek warrior- most of them had wives andHomosexual lovers. I believe Achille's master was his lover - I forget his name.

linky (http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/randomstuff/gay.html)

[Fanty]

LEts dotn forget that the Iliad is not history, but an ancient adventure novel. ;)

The whole story is very unlikely to have happend.

Through Troy may have had some trouble with the Greeks for real. If this can be called a "war" or just raiding is the question.

That can be seen in a letter to the Troyan leader by his superior. (Troy most likely was part of the Hittitian Empire, one of the Superpowers of the day----> The Hittiti accept teh Aegytians and Babylonians as equal. The Greeks they consider primitive Barbarians), in wich the superior king, grands the leader of Troy any suport against the Mykenian Barbarians (Greeks) pestilence as he needs.

It describes the Greek as Sea Barbarians who frequently raid the coast of the Hittiti Superpower.

Troy was a medium size city in the provence. Build to control and tax all ships that want to enter the black sea. Though it still apeared increadable huge and rich to the Greek.

There is no archeologic evidence that the Greek ever destroid Troy. As there is no evidence for a full size war.

The Iliad is wishfull thinking and Fantasy mostly ;)
And written centuries after it suposely happend.

[Hosakawa Tito]

This Trojan Horse has been moved to the Front Room.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Beware of flicks bearing myths
Debra Saunders (archive)


May 13, 2004 | Print | Send


So, is Brad Pitt a good guy or a bad guy? I hear a man behind me ask as I sit at a screening for Troy, the latest Hollywood blockbuster. Pitt plays Achilles, the not-so-good Greek hero of Homer's Iliad.

So it's clear the audience hasn't read Homer or doesn't know that Hollywood took his epic and whittled it down to a pic.

Too bad. The makers of the movie did a number of things right. Pitt is the perfect Achilles -- bronzed, muscular, ruthless and entirely absorbed in amassing personal fame. He's a temperamental superstar, UC Berkeley Classics Professor Stephen Miller said of Achilles (or could have said of Pitt).

It is well cast. Peter O'Toole steals the show as Troy's King Priam; Sean Bean works as Odysseus. Julie Christie has the star-power to play Achilles' mother Thetis.

The Trojan horse manages to inspire awe without looking like a special effect, even if the producers shorted the heartbreaking scenes of the Trojans welcoming the lethal gift.

Why does Hollywood feel a need to take an exceptional tale but then twist it into the same old story? Unlikable guy becomes likable -- again and again. Or as the press kit explains: Achilles' insatiable hunger for eternal renown leads him to Troy, but it will be love that ultimately decides his fate.

It is as if the writer didn't even bother with the CliffsNotes or to read the first line of the epic poem. Hint: The Iliad is about The Wrath of Achilles. It's not about Achilles turning into Mr. Sensitivity.

The Iliad'' is about an old code of honor and conquest. The characters in Troy are New Age apostles who regurgitate the same sound bites and psycho-babble you can hear any night on TV.

It's ironic that this politically correct version of The Iliad dispenses with Achilles' most intimate attachment, fellow warrior Patroclus. They're too close for a buddy movie.

Enter the Beautiful-Yet-Spunky Young Woman, Briseis, who in Homer's story is a piece of chattel, won in battle after Achilles slaughters her husband and family.

In celluloid Troy, she's a virgin who is seemingly the only person alive who isn't awed by Achilles' personal power. (That's from the press kit, and not remotely true in the movie. Briseis, after all, saw Pitt without his loincloth.) Rose Byrne, who plays the part, explains that her character becomes the emotional core of Achilles.

Emotional core? In Achilles' world, that's the solar plexus.

I can forgive that the war in Troy seems to take a few weeks, not the 10 years recounted in Homer's Iliad. Still, it would have made for a more interesting movie if the script portrayed the steel of men who would fight for a brutal decade, Professor Miller noted.

Need I mention that Troy The Movie dispenses with every mortal female character over 35? There's no Cassandra to warn Troy of its pending doom, only to be ignored. (If she were in the cast, she'd be warning viewers: They've ruined the ending.) Gone are the middle-aged wives of Greece's middle-aged kings.

But the most egregious change in Troy is that the script kills Agamemnon and Menelaus before they return to Greece. That's analogous to having Pontius Pilate issue a reprieve for Jesus in The Passion of the Christ.

In Homer, a victorious Agamemnon returns to Mycenae with his battle booty, Cassandra, in tow. There his wife, Clytemnestra, and her lover kill Agamemnon in the bathtub. (That's her revenge for his blood sacrifice of their daughter.) This is one of the great twists in Homer's tale -- but they're gone in the movie.

On screen however, Briseis somehow changes from an anti-war virgin to a liberated female Rambo; she kills Agamemnon. There's no need to make Briseis kill the king, said UC Berkeley Classics Professor Anthony Bulloch. The Greeks already thought of that. And there's so much more comeuppance in Agamemnon dying by the hand of a wronged wife and mother.

Miller fears that schoolkids, having seen the movie, now won't believe the book. It sounds like you're better off if you haven't read Homer, he said. No lie.

It's not that Troy is a bad movie. It's a good movie -- if you don't care about Homer. It could have been a great movie if the people who created it cared about the power of this fantastic tale.

[hrvojej]

Well, it would seem that the person who wrote that comment hasn't read the Iliad either, as many of the things she says were not faithful to it (e.g. Agamemnon's death) are in fact not part of it and are outside its scope.

Thanks for posting the article, at least I'll be less disappointed knowing what (not) to expect beforehand.

[mercian billman]

Aggaememnon's death was not part of the Iliad but, neither was the sacking of Troy.

I am pretty disappointed by your reviews, I thought the movie would be more than the usual crap. I don't mind them having Helen and Paris live, or even making Breises a major character, but reducing Patroclus to a minor character is a shame. Especially after I finished a essay Achilles and Patroclus just a month ago.

[hrvojej]

From what it seems so far, they've reduced Hector to a fairly minor character, which is even more silly. But as we all know, the Holywood producers know best what is a good story. Nearly three millenia of prepetuation mean nothing when it comes down to what makes something eternal - they know better what will stand the test of time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Sjakihata]

It's now been somewhile since I read *parts* of the Illiad and Odysse.

But was Patroklos not Achilleus' best friend, possible lover our teacher said whose death enraged Achilleus to kill Hector? Even though he knew he would die soon after killing him?

If that is true, then how can either of them be reduced to MINOR characters??

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif

[hrvojej]

Quote[/b] (Sjakihata @ May 13 2004,17:50)]It's now been somewhile since I read *parts* of the Illiad and Odysse.

But was Patroklos not Achilleus' best friend, possible lover our teacher said whose death enraged Achilleus to kill Hector? Even though he knew he would die soon after killing him?

If that is true, then how can either of them be reduced to MINOR characters??

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
Because fo the love story and the happy ending? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[mercian billman]

Quote[/b] (Sjakihata @ May 13 2004,16:50)]It's now been somewhile since I read *parts* of the Illiad and Odysse.

But was Patroklos not Achilleus' best friend, possible lover our teacher said whose death enraged Achilleus to kill Hector? Even though he knew he would die soon after killing him?

If that is true, then how can either of them be reduced to MINOR characters??

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
Movie producers, probably think that people would rather watch a movie with a love story between a man and woman as opposed to a man and another man. A lot of people would walk out the theatre feeling a little weird. I know I felt a little weird when I figured out Achilles and Patroclus were lovers.

I think people should understand that homosexuality in Ancient Greece was different from todays homosexuality from perception to practice. One example is anal sex, while todays homosexuals see it as the ultimate expression of their love, in contrast Greeks looked down on bottom boys.

Hope that wasn't to far off topic

[solypsist]

the New Yorker gave it a good review, so I'll probably go see it.
Can't say I'll rush to see VanHelsing

[Alrowan]

it came out here on the 12th :p

i saw it today, it certainly is a good movie, worth seeing. AS for hector, he isnt given a minor role at all, in fact when he dies, u kinda feel sorry for the guy. Its dissapointing that they have to give orlando blooms character a part where he has to kick ass with a bow... jeesus, get over it already, he isnt an elf. (though i enjoyed watching him getting hammered by the spartan King)

from what i recall the war lasted quite a few years... if i remember properly that is. but in the movie the war lasts 16 days...

day1. the landing
day2. greeks assault the city
day3. trojans attack the greeks position on the beaches, patroclus gets killed.
day4. achillies vs hector
12 days of peace
evening of day 16, tojan horse, and end of war...

anyway, back to the review. Good battle scenes, esp the first one when the greeks attack troy.

things that annoyed me in the movie apart from orlando bloom:

-brad pitt does this little jump-stab move about 6 times, youll see it at the start, and he just keeps using it. it looks rediculous.
-helen might have launched 1000 ships in the iliad, but i think this helen might be lucky to launch 200
-melenaus looks scottish
-orlando bloom
-people in the audience with moobile phones

apart from all that it was enjoyable, ill probably get the DVD when it comes out, but chances are ill only see it once (maybe twices - depending on the company)in the movies.

[7Bear7Scar]

To all those who have given the plot (movie plot, not the Illiad), I would like to say THANK YOU http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

I really think they missed out on a huge crowd-puller though...imagine if they had made Pitt do a gay kiss All the women going 'awwww', and the guys being sick in their popcorn......

*reverts to female steryotype*

Bloom....drewllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[mercian billman]

I can forgive them for condensing the length of the Trojan war. 10 years is a very long period to cover, and would require a mini-series to make it possible.

[Alrowan]

heh, 10 years to 16 days.... what a condensation

and scar, i hope u werned reffering to me, i didnt reveal anything of the movie plot... apart from the fact it took 16 days to conquer troy.... im sure if there were any trojans arroud today they would be rightly insulted.


though i am hoping they make the oddesy, it just wouldnt be the same without it

[The Wizard]

Going to go and see it today... in not too long a time...

Anyways, I think Hector was a greater man than Achilles, but the movie probably won't agree with me.



~Wiz

[Red Peasant]

It's not surprising that you pick anyone above a Greek, Wiz. You seem to have a problem with them. You have a point though.

However, both Achilles and Hector have come down as paradigms of certain virtues. Hector is the epitomy of valiant resistance, the brave patriot, enshrining a balance between the warrior's courage and the good husband and citizen. Whereas, Achilles is the apogee of the warrior in battle, but he also has some of the finest speeches in the Iliad. So he is a man of words and action.

Possibly the most affecting scene in the work is when he is confronted by the broken courage and diginity of the aged Priam when he comes as a suppliant to collect the body of his son. Achilles recognises his pain and suffering and weeps on the old man's shoulders. It made me shed tears when I first read it, and is a testimony to the common humanity of these men, no matter how insidious is the moral degradation and brutality of war or how god-like their powers seem to be.

[The Wizard]

Well, this is mythology pur sang, so I don't think this is a very good example of me being anti-Greek.

I just think that Hector is the better man, because, even though Achilles was a demi-god who was nigh on invincible, Hector nearly kills him. As far as you can say that about Achilles, that is.

It's an opinion, my friend, of a story.

There are many arguments to support my point of view regarding the Achaemenid Persians and the Greeks, as I am sure you are reffering to my arguments with particularly Rosacrux.

Oh, and I didn't get to see the movie today... my date called and said she couldn't go... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif



~Wiz

[Red Peasant]

I ain't seen the movie either, yet. I will view it as a movie, not as the Iliad. If it is good on those terms I will enjoy it. If it inspires more people to study the great literature of the classics then I will be content.

As for Rosa, he is a patriot as well, and good for him. I have made some comments about the ancient, and modern, Greeks which he has found unpalatable but I can live with that. It does not dim my appreciation of those old myths and stories, and the incalculable contribution those great men of old made to our culture. They were men of undimmed brilliance. They built a monument in bronze for all time.

[The Wizard]

Oh, one more thing...

I absolutely despise Achilles' arrogance, as well as his stupidity. Really, the only smart guy in all of the Greek camp was Odysseus.

That is what I like about Hector: he was not arrogant; he was wise, just, and a man whom I would admire should I have known him.

All opinion, though. Just like I think Frodo is a whining idiot and Gollum an annoying freak, and Atticus Finch as admirable as Hector. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif



~Wiz

[Red Peasant]

Hector is an attractive figure and is immortalised as a pattern of virtue so your preference is understandable, and I concur in many ways. One should not dismiss Achilles out of hand though, as a sensitive reading reveals a man of sensibility and deep conviction.

I'm just glad that other people like your good self appreciate this great work.

Cheers http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

[hrvojej]

I saw it today. It bears NO resemblence to the myth at all. It might as well be happening in Cimmeria. However, if you think that it is in fact happening in Cimmeria, it ends up being moderately entertaining. The guy they casted for Patrocles is great for the role. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[hrvojej]

As for the Hector vs. Achilles role....

Hector is definitely favored by Homer (and by Zeus through him), as are the Trojans in general. Hector is embodiment of duty. He does things because they are a right thing to do, and his sense of duty overcomes his human failings and rises him up to be the true hero. He knows that he and his city are doomed, but he does everything he can, not for the glory, but because it is his path and he follows it as virtuosly as he can. He is not stupid or an automaton because of that, he just submits to his fate and does what should be done. He is also a kind man, a loving husband and father, loyal to his family, and respectful to his enemies. All this makes him rise above the crowd, and a very likable character.

Achilles is the embodiment of the unbridled emotion. He behaves as a spoiled child and even as a psycho, not because he is crazy, but because he has very little control over his emotions, just like a child does. He also knows his fate of greatness, and his whole upbringing was coloured by his mother's pampering of it (the unhappy woman/goddess who put all her life into her child as the light of her life). This is what makes his appearance in the battlefield formidable, his fury infinite and his acts removed from the code of conduct. He is not evil, he is just blinded by emotions, and his crying with king Priam is another example of his volatile temperament, where he both knows that he did the wrong thing, and his heart goes through another sudden change. That's also why he can be reasoned with, and why his actions are excused by the heat of the moment and temporary unaccountability (unlike his son who has inherited his father's temperament, but not his ability to change his heart - he is just evil).

Also, you cannot view Greek characters outside the Greek understanding of fate. Everything is already determined, fate is even greater than gods, Troy is doomed ever since the dawn of the human kind, and all they can do is to follow it the best that they can. Everything in life just leads toward the fulfillment of that fate and there is nothing that men or gods can do to change it. Hector is a prime example of this, and the conflict that it creates when he hopes that his son will grow and that he'll be there to watch it happen, even though he knows that will never be, but he cannot help but to wish for it.

Iliad is such a masterpiece.

[Red Peasant]

Excellent post Hrvojej. I may have some quibbles with your interpretation, but what you say is valid. Like any masterpiece, the Iliad and its characters is multi-faceted and can be read in many ways.

[Red Peasant]

I suppose, on a simplistic level, one could say that Hector represents the dutiful citizen of the community, the 'polis', whereas Achilles reflects the individualistic ideal of the warrior aristocracy.

[The Wizard]

Hmmm... I don't know about that...

In Hector I see the succesful adult who is involved in his community, who dares to take responsibility and get up and help his fellow man, who leads by example; in Achilles I see a young man struggling in the - for the Greeks - hard youth and puberty, with the granted burden of being the mightiest and strongest man of the entire Greek camp. Rather a tragic figure...



~Wiz

[Red Peasant]

I don't think that Homer meant for Achilles to be a 'bad man', as that would be judging both poet and warrior by 'modern' convention. IMO Achilles gains the upper hand in his arguments over Agamemnon and Odysseus. Agamemnon is most at fault in that his leadership skills are poor and he allows personal, aristocratic notions of pride and honour to overstep what should be his primary role as commander-in-chief of a sometimes brittle alliance. Odysseus is usually the pragmatic realist, the man who Agamemnon should be. If he had been the leader I feel he may have accommodated the fractious individuals under his command. However, in continuing accounts, this is qualified by his treatment of the great Salaminian Ajax, who committed suicide rather than submit to Odysseus' claims to Achilles' legacy. It is a complex story.

[hrvojej]

Achilles is definitely not a bad man. He is just a man, whose actions have their reasons and come out of context. His emotions get the best of him mostly, and he is preconditioned to be the best, but that is just who he is, that doesn;t make him a bad guy. There is no black and white in Homer, and indeed in Greek mythology in general (the gods have human characteristics, are not infallable, etc.).

It's true what you say about Agamemnon, but he is also greatly burdened by being in command, for he has to care for the entire army and the success of the cause itself. He is a great leader, a father figure for the army in his stature and personality, but not infallable either. There are those who are wiser than him, smarter than him, more heroic than him, but nobody would be able to shoulder the responsibility for the entire army such as he, for he places the common good above everything else, even his daughter's life. He is there to see the war through and not for the glory, and his personal issues are set aside (the Briseis incident is an exception, and demostrates how this is not the way to run things). That doesn't mean he is above the petty squabbles or pride, although he can rise above them mostly, but he is still just flesh and blood underneath his leadership. This just goes to show how different Greek notion of a hero (or a god) was to our present day notions, or that of the chivalric age.

Odysseus is a bitter man. He didn't want to come in the first place, as he wasn't bound by the pledge of Helen's suitors, and he can never forgive or forget that. He doesn't really consider this to be his war, and he never lets go of his grudges. He wants to go home more than anything else, and has a bit of a superiority complex. If one was to oversimplfy, he can be described as a snide advisor who works for his own ends as much as he works for the common cause, and if they overlap, everybody benefits. This makes him unsuitable for a leader, for unlike Agamemnon who does everything for the benefit of the army and the cause, he employs his skills to get out of there as soon as possible. Of course, he has honor and all that, but the common good is not his first priority. He doesn't want to be a hero, he wants to be at home with his wife and son.

ps. Sorry if I happen to misspel the anglicized versions of people's names, I hope you know who/what I mean.

[Alrowan]

in the movie, hector is probably the most lovable charachter, though you do kinda feel for achillies by the end

[hrvojej]

Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ May 15 2004,18:31)]in the movie, hector is probably the most lovable charachter, though you do kinda feel for achillies by the end
Yes, I forgot to correct my earlier remark about minor characters in the movie: Hector's is indeed not a minor role, he gets plenty of space.

Btw, with regard to your earlier remark about Orlando Bloom and the bow: Paris was primarily a bowman in the myth as well, so it's not because of the Orlando that they made it so. His overall physical characteristics also fit well with the mythological Paris: kind of soft, almost weakling personality, more inclined to enjoy wine and his wife than to actually fight for it and/or fulfill his duty for something he has caused himself (well, it was to be so anyway, but he was a catalyst of doom) - definitely not a shield of Troy like his brother Hector. He has a good face for the role.

[Red Peasant]

True, Hrvojej, Odysseus was reluctant to go to war, but so was Achilles. However, unlike Achilles, Odysseus was bound by the Oath of Tyndareus by which he had gained his own wife, Penelope. Odysseus was caught in his own snare.

I can't agree about Agamemnon. He is a symbolic cipher in the Iliad, a man whose personal power is represented by his position and his inheritance from Pelops. The Sceptre handed down by Zeus symbolises his power, and Odysseus takes this off him in the very first book of the Iliad (or the 2nd, can't quite remember) and browbeats the Achaeans into obedience. Agamemnon is a poor leader in the Iliad, commanding little respect, even from the commoner, Thersites.

The remarks about 'bows' is good though. Bowmen play an important part in the fall of Troy. The 'lesser' Ajax is a great bowman who deters the Trojans, and the symbolic figure of Philoctetes plays a vital role, even though still marooned on Lemnos with his wounded foot. Only when his bow, that is inherited from Heracles, which kills Paris, is finally deployed in the battle will the Achaeans be triumphant. He is a great character: inheriting the great bow of Heracles, accompanying Jason on the voyage for the golden fleece, killing Paris, and emerging from the wooden horse to sack Troy.

[hrvojej]

I view it a bit differently. Achilles was but a child when they came to get him - the first hairs only started to appear on his face. That's why he was able to hide among the girls, and he was hidden by his mother (IIRC) so that he wouldn't reach his glory and early death, but rather live a long healthy life. However, when the trick was on and he grabbed the weapons, he was again a victim of his emotions - which spelled both his highest and lowest moments. IMO, it wasn't that he was reluctant to go (he gladly accepted it once the cover has been blown), he wasn't able to decide for himself due to his age, and was lead to the war by powers other than his own rational thought - unlike Odysseus who made a conscious decision not to go, and could never forgive the trick that made him to do so.

Agamemnon is a cursed man in my eyes, and not only by the cursed fate of his family. I view him as broken by his burden more than anything else. He did everything he could for the past ten or so years, and is weary of keeping everything in place, especially since the things are not going too well - the walls are not even dented yet. So, in him I view the conflict between dedication to succeed and the despair of failure (as in that it doesn't seem likely that they'll manage to succeed any time soon), and between holding everything in place and holding it in place for so long. His regal persona is still great, but he simply can't take it any more; he's lost his heart for the most part through worrying and responsibility about the cause and keeping all the squabbly heroes together, and is as likely to continue doing so as he is to just throw his hands in the air. Also, another great aspect about him, as I mentioned above, is that he is not the first in anything, like strength, wisdom, etc., yet he is still the leader, which gives his character a great human note (again, unlike the chivalric stories where the greatest warrior always becomes the king, e.g.).

Yes, Philoctetes is one of those characters that add great flavour to the story. He's an old fox who has seen it all already, and the Achaeans have to atone for their wrongdoings by going back for him - another slap to Odysseus and his hastiness to go back home as soon as possible. Persuading Philoctetes to come back was probably the only positive role that the Neoptolemos (sp? sorry) played when he stood up for him to defend him. However, I think the issue was about Heracles' arrows, poisoned by the blood of Hydra, and not the bow?

[Nelson]

I enjoyed the film. This was the best work Pitt has done. He was a fine Achilles.

The story was of course changed for the big screen. In particular, the Hector vs Achilles fight.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just saw it. Not enough gods in it like when Paris is wounded the gods are supposed to save him only one I saw was Achilles Mom. Ending sucked also but had some great stuff in it also. Just enough if the real Iliad to make it recognizable. Maybe it will get kids to read it.

[hrvojej]

Quote[/b] (Gawain of Orkeny @ May 17 2004,01:22)]Maybe it will get kids to read it.
Let's just hope it won't make them think it *is* the Iliad though. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I don't know why I always clamor that movies shouldn't educate people, and then always worry that they're going to do just that.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Lazul]

I saw it, two days ago. Well I cant say I was dissapointed, in fact I was impressed.
I loved the figthing scenes and mass scenes was as good as the ones in LOTR.
Brad was a perfect Achilles and Bana did a good Hector.

But what I really like about this movies is that there are no heroes. Achilles is nothing but a warrior seeking glory, Paris isnt really a Hero, he the dumbass who coused the war, The kings are also no heroes, maybe Prim.
The only one that a bit like a Hero is Hector, he defend Troy with almost a patriotic feeling (not that I like patriotism but it works in movies).

And the duel, Hector vs Achilles was great, I for one loved Achilles jumpstabbing and for once it was wonderfull to see a duel without the Flying middair, 10k-swings-a-minute style.
In this movie the fighters accualy gets tired... its no frikkin Hong Kong uber-powerfull fighitng style.

...I loved this movie... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif

[solypsist]

i have no real complaints, although towards the end i did check my watch once or twice