To me, this movie is perfection.

A different way of telling a story

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

This three-hour film tells the famous story of the Trojan War fairly well between the Greeks and the Trojans. It is one of the oldest stories of mankind, already in the classical Greek texts, but has been the target of a series of bad adaptations for the cinema. "Troy" (2004) is perhaps one of the worst, focusing on muscle and testosterone (paving the way for "300", a disaster, a few years later). Here the focus is the romance between Paris and Helena, two lovers destined to suffer and to drag an entire people with them. Of course the purists will consider it another mistake, but I find this prospect happier and more satisfying than another, full of steroids and sebum to make the muscles bright. I also liked the film to have space for characters that usually end up overshadowed in other adaptations, but given the length of the film this was almost imperative (even considering the split in two episodes, thought to be on television). From the point of view of historical rigor I was also satisfied, not being an expert in classical civilizations to evaluate it in the best way. The cast has several strong names, such as Stellan Skarsgård, Daniel Lapaine, Maryam d'Abo, John Rhys-Davies and Rufus Sewell. Most actors performed their duty very well and toasted the audience with good performances. CGI and special effects are good enough to fulfill their role.

I liked the movie. It gives a good review of the events that led to the Trojan war. Questions regarding the exact nature of Helen are still debated in scholarly circles. Was she manipulator of people and events, or a victim of events? Did she run off willingly with Paris/Alexander or was she abducted? Was she a flake or was she some sort of über-woman? Sienna Guilory plays to all of these questions. At one moment a waif and when needed--über-woman; at one moment a victim, at another a perpetrator. The role is not as easy to play as one might think.But what if someone like Elizabeth Hurley was cast as Helen? Someone with body size to go with the indomitable and chameleon spirit of Helen? Would there be a different sense to the movie and to Helen as a theatrical role? Complaints about fidelity to the ancient text are duly noted; like reading the Cliff notes, a movie ain't the best way to crib for tomorrow's exam on the Iliad. Helen of Troy. Her story is one that grew over the years and with every accretion changed. In 'Agamemnon', Aeschylus doesn't even want to mention her name, she is a betrayer of Greece. Euripides' "Helen" might be regarded as the first bastardized story-line of the original from the Iliad. The Trojan Horse is an incident from the Odyssey and takes very few lines; Vergil's Aeneid discusses the Trojan Horse in any detail. So to think the viewer is watching an interpretation of Homer's Iliad, better re-read the original.The Greek story can be complicated to follow, especially for the modern viewer. I thought they did an admirable job of getting the general idea--even if some of the details were lost in translation.

The story is pretty well known, at least in some sectors of social space, so I'll just make some observations as I watch this longish version through.Briefly: It's about 1200 BC. Paris, a young man of Troy, falls in love with, Helen, the wife of a Greek king and runs off with her to his home. This annoys the Greeks. They launch a thousand ships and wage a ten-year war against the walls of Troy. The Trojan forces include the noble Hector. The Greeks have Achilles and the wily Odysseus. The war is brutal but finally ends, although the in-family tsuris persists through the post-war period.First, half an hour in, I haven't seen anything in the wardrobe or weapons that was disturbing but I'm not a historian. True, some of the armor looks left over from a movie about the Roman Empire, and in battle the swords don't look like Greek choppers but like the Roman gladius, but it doesn't poison the story. What I definitely could not wrap my head around was Achilles -- a muscle-bound, bald-headed street thug who would have fit very well into one of Cinecitta's sword-and-sandal epics starring Steve Reeves from the 1950s or, better yet, into a modern urban action movie. All that's missing are the barbed wire tattoos. There have been complaints that it wanders too far from Homer's original but so far it resembles the original story, at least the translation I read years ago. I doubt anyone know what the ACTUAL original was like. Homer's version was written down hundreds of years after the event. And I understand it was all memorized oral folklore. The iambic pentameter was a mnemonic device. If the orator screwed up the meter he'd know he'd made a mistake, but it's easy to imagine that improvisation to bring back order was a common event. I doubt that Homer hewed to closely to the hundreds-of-year-old original tale, but then there might not have been that much left for Homer to hew to.At least this one has the gods and goddesses mucking around with things, although not much. Paris gets the golden apple for choosing Aphrodite as the most beautiful of three competing contestants, and she backs Paris in the Trojan War. Next time he should be a bit more pragmatic and choose Athena. Even if she had a face like the rear end of an International eighteen wheeler, she knows about war. Nothing here though about Aphrodite back Troy in the war. There are also complaints about Helen not being worth a war because she's not as bewitchingly desirable as she should be, but in my opinion she looks just fine and would do in a pinch. She's spirited, slender and blond, with a piping voice, a la gamin, and looks vaguely French. If you watch it, you'll see what I mean.I have no memory of Paris on his first visit to Troy being pitted in games against the finest Trojan warriors. (He beats Hector in a knife fight in the arena.) Maybe the scenes were added to juice up the story with more action and to turn Paris into more of a hero, or it may be that my brain is turning to tofu, in which case I will leave it for analysis to the American Culinary Institute. I don't recall that Helen was first kidnapped by the agents of one of the Greek kings either. It looks like padding. But the honorable kidnapper is played by Stellan Skarsgaard whose work I've always admired, whether his character is good or evil. The other performers who stand out are John Rhys-Davies as King Pryam, James Callis as the sneaky Agamemnon, and Rufus Sewell as the honest Menelaus.In the end, only the bare bones of the original remain. We hardly see Odysseus. There is no Patroclus. Achilles never has a hissy fit over his girl friend being taken away. But there IS the Trojan Horse, Achilles dragging Hector's body around the walls of Troy, Paris killing Achilles with an arrow to the heel, and Cassandra's prophecies being realized. A revenge incident is tacked on at the end to provide a sense of justice prevailing. The underhanded Agamemnon is murdered in his bath by his jealous wife, Clytemnestra. But that's from a different play altogether. It's like taking a shoe horn and working the Doolittle raid into the climax of the wretched "Pearl Harbor," only there to provide a feeling of justice having been done.I kind of enjoyed it. The production values are high, the use of CGIs is modest and effective, the photography isn't too gloomy or in high contrast or tinted a ghoulish green, and the editing is sane and classical instead of lightning fast and disorienting. It's a sad story but a very human one. The only characters with truly out-sized flaws are Agamemnon and Achilles. All the other characters are shown as admirable in some way, or at least understandable.

English IV 38 Aug. 12, 2005 Krissel Tolentino IV-3From Homer to Me and You"Helen of Troy", a three-hour movie, produced by Adam Shapiro and Ted Kurdyla. It was based on the classic "Iliad", written centuries ago, yet was just released two years ago, year 2003. This clearly states how the far they were apart. It's a proof of how Homer's "Iliad" crossed time and still made its effect, a true definition of a classic literature.The "Iliad" started with the judgment of Paris. He made a choice out of the three goddesses and had Helen, as an offering. Their being together initiated the war between the Trojans and the Greeks and taking sides of the gods and goddesses. Agamemnon, the High King of Mycenae, ruled over the Greeks while King Priam and his sons ruled over Troy. Both sides' fate depended on the gods. War caused deaths and ruined lives of many. The war went on for 10 years until Odysseus thought of using a wooden horse to enter Troy's gates, which was said to be made of gold. This caught the Trojans by surprise. Every man died, leaving the women and children to be taken away with the Greeks. They wept and mourned while departing from the burning Troy.The plot was well developed. They interpreted in a realistic way and at the same time, being faithful to the text. A lot of themes can be reflected in the story. Examples are: the insignificance of women; power over greater power; powerful over powerless; and many more. The story was told in a man's perspective, Menelaus. He was a Greek leader and from whom Helen was taken from. I guess it would have been better if it was from a woman's point of view. A good one would be from Helen's point of view. Many people didn't like her because of her "selfish" acts. Giving her side of the story, would probably clear her name or better yet, side with her. Among all the characters, King Priam was my favorite. I admire how he made wise decisions and accepted Helen as a Trojan. He knew that by accepting Helen would mean war yet he understood that it Paris loved her and rejecting her wouldn't instantly stop the war. He portrayed the qualities of an ideal person; one who knows how to make decisions and one who keeps his word.The screenplay was amazing. The actors and actresses did well in representing each uniquely ancient character. The superb acting was, of course, combined excellent lighting and sound effects. Though the story was antique, the script made its way to every viewer's heart and soul. All these wouldn't be possible without the director, Ronni Kern. I am sure he is one proud guy for this. The movie could be given an Emmy's award. It is so remarkable for an old story to be interpreted in way that anybody could understand. They also somehow passed to us Homer's feelings for writing the "Iliad". For the movie "Helen of Troy", I am rating it with four out of five. It was a great movie but I think, it could still be improved…or another interpretation could be better. For every experience, there's a lesson or thought to be learned. With that: for every movie, there's a way of letting that thought get through the viewer's deeper understanding.