|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: The Achilles heel (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot,  in Movies
I haven't seen this one in a while but I know the old studios ripped off their composers quite a bit. You catch familiar snatches in various dramas that were lifted from other scores.
I think Pitt did a fine job as an angry Achilles and that's the theme of the Iliad, despite the current comic book mentality that demands a prologue and epilogue.
|
Feb 20 '07
7:56 am PST
|
|
The Achilles heel (Reply to this comment)
by Stephen_Murray, in Movies
of the movie, for me, having finally gotten around to watching the second half of the movie, is James Horner plagiarizing himself and others (yet again) for the overinflated musical score.
I don't see much Aneiad (no Dido!) and a rather different take on why Akhilles was so upset by Patroklos's death than the ancients had, but I thought that Brad Pitt portrayed the petulance and contempt for Agammemnon quite well and was convincing as a kung-fu warrior (that isn't in Homer?). And Eric Bana sure seems like the Hektor I remember, including not let the archers shoot. Shakespeare had not yet come along to note that discretion is sometimes the better part of valor, I guess.
|
Feb 19 '07
4:03 pm PST
|
|
Uh, George, uh, do you REALLY like this (Reply to this comment)
by buffoonery
I've heard it get ripped by people I trust. I trust you. Should I see it? Should I see it sober?
buff
|
May 19 '04
4:37 pm PDT
|
|
Glad we agree that this is a keeper! (Reply to this comment)
by Ed.Williamson
One thing that the controversy about "Homer-faithfulness" does is to stir up more discussion which generates curiosity which sells tickets. I usually follow Ebert's viewpoint, but I have to part company with him over this. Far from being a rehash of old Hollywood cliches, TROY carves new ground from beginning to end. I have to wonder if part of the negative reactions of some have to do with Brad's off-screen good looks and cool persona, or maybe just flat-out jealousy. He may not be the warmest actor in the world, but he delivered the goods in this one, and as you say, he was true to the Homeric description of him. Thanks for a superb review.
-Ed
|
May 19 '04
12:49 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: damn it! (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot, in Movies
I knew you would, Doc! You and me have similar tastes.
|
May 16 '04
5:37 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: damn it! (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
Saw it!
LOVED it! can't wait to seeit again already.
Doc
|
May 16 '04
5:27 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Looks good... (Reply to this comment)
by George_Chabot, in Movies
Thanks, Quinn! I'll bet you'll enjoy this!
|
May 15 '04
5:31 pm PDT
|
|
Looks good... (Reply to this comment)
by JediKermit
I read The Iliad a LONG time ago...but I'm thinking that cutting out the mythology and some other elements was probably a wise move. Entertainment Weekly was complaining about it, but I don't know if it would work with today's audience. Anyway, great review...this is one I'm looking forward to seeing.
-Quinn
|
May 15 '04
4:57 pm PDT
|
|
Iliad, Aeneid, and Troy (Reply to this comment)
by bloodline23
One last thing. I noticed you've mentioned several times about how the story of Troy encompasses both the Aeneid and the Iliad. Although that is true, it also depends on where you get your version of the story from, since many people have written adapted versions from the Homer and Virgil originals. Many writers I think consider the Iliad to end at the sacking of Troy, and then begin the Aeneid as Aeneus makes his voyage home (just as the Odyssey begins with Odysseus going home). I have read probably three or four different retellings of the Iliad, and each has gone through the sacking of Troy. Only my old copy of poems by Homer still breaks the two apart at the death of Hector. Personally, I think it makes more sense for the Iliad to end after the sacking of Troy, instead of having the Aeneid end one story then go into a different story with a different main character. Anyway, just one man's opinion :-)
|
May 15 '04
12:59 pm PDT
|
|
I disagree (Reply to this comment)
by bloodline23
I have read the Iliad and the Odyssey probably ten times, and the LOTR books several times. Although the LOTR movies did cut out many things from the books, it didn't do it by killing off characters that didn't die in the book or resolving situations in completely different manners. When Achilles, whose skin could not be pierced by any man-made object, is killed by being shot with arrows in the heel and CHEST by Paris (I don't know what you mean by poisoned arrow, since there is no mention during the movie that Paris uses poisoned arrows), that was shameful. TThis change alone in the story is the equivalent of having the LOTR movies end by Frodo throwing the ring into the fire himself. Your idea of using a poisoned arrow in the heel to kill Achilles would have been great! I don't know why the director didn't use that himself! I would have rather seen a few more battles, and they could have used a few CGI tricks to show the battles as they raged through the years in different weather conditions. At least that would have made it seem longer than a weekend at Bernie's. I know changes need to be made to get a movie from paper to film, but the changes they decided to go with just weren't the best. Menelaus didn't need to die, Paris could have been dragged off and Menelaus restrained, yelled back how he will eventually kill Paris anyway. I guess in today's world, you have to have Agamemnon die, otherwise it leaves the impression that being a ruthless leader results in victory. That's fine, since he ends up dying afterwards anyway. Menelaus though has a role in the Odyssey, boarding Odysseus' son Telemachus for a while before Telemachus returns to save his mother from her suitors in Ithaca. Anyway, the acting was not bad (I think they gave Achilles a little more extra brains than he should have had), and the special effects were great, but they strayed from a good story way too much.
|
May 15 '04
12:12 pm PDT
|
|
damn it! (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
Nick is home and hates theaters so I won't see this one til like Sunday night... hey that's tomorrow!
*wrings her hands*
I'm like a kid awaiting Christmas morning...
Doc
|
May 15 '04
8:04 am PDT
|
|
Right On (Reply to this comment)
by ParisLemon
I completely agree with your review of the film. I just saw it and came home to read some of the major critics thoughts on it, and was surprised to say the least. Especially surprising was Ebert who basically panned the film as being nothing like The Illiad and the characters as all being Hollywood cliches. It seems that Ebert really wanted to see a 10 year war epic (which would have had to have been at least 4 hours long and probably longer to do convincingly) for his summer blockbuster fare.
I thought the film did an excellent job of translating the work of Homer and Virgil on to the screen. I felt all the key points were covered while cutting back on some of the issues with the gods for good reasons. I had similar reservations when Ebert wrote about The Lord of the Rings films. He liked them but said they "weren't Tolkien". Well of course not Roger, Tolkein didn't make movies, let alone write screenplays. Obviously Homer and Virgil didn't either. It's as if he wants every great book to be translated perfectly in original form into film. He of all people should know that is impossible with books of this magnitude. We are talking about 2 completely different mediums here. So unless he wants to sit through 10 hour long films, he is never going to get his wish. Any 10 hour film would be boring, you couldn't watch it all at once. This film did a good a job of telling this story while being very entertaining. Is that not enough for a summer blockbuster?
Sorry for rambling I was just dumbfounded at some critics thoughts' on the film. Your review however, I thought was excellent.
-Matt
|
May 15 '04
12:14 am PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.