Helen of Troy

Greek warriors attack and besiege Troy when Paris takes Helen and both of them escape. This mythological fantasy finds Helen , the beautiful wife falling in love with prince Paris , an event that leads to the siege of Troy .Director John kent Harrison picked two bright young stars Matthew Mardsen and Sienna Guilery to play the lovers in this breathtaking Tv story in 2 episodes of the Trjan War and the motives led up to it. As Greek warriors under command of Agamenon, Ulysses , Achilles and Menelao get to hide out in the Trojan Horse with fellow fighters and then get those Trojanswhen they take the wooden beast into the city and they are successful.

After a hardworking shooting and budget enough the results were only fair and passable.the picture ignores script for lavish effects , most of them made by means of computer generator.In the picture appears several historical and mythological characters played by notorious actors as Priamo:john Rhy Davies ,Agammenon : Rufus Sewell, Achilles: Joe Montana,Hector:Daniel Lapine,Theseus: Stellan Skarsgard, Clymnestra: Katie Blake , Menelao : James Callis Hecuba: Marian Dabo, and the Medium Cassandra performed by Emily Fox.

These events about Troy war has been adapted several times such as :Italian version titled Trojan Horse 1962 by Giorgio Ferroni with Steve Reeves Juliette Mayniel Lidia Alfonsi Mimmo Palmara. Rendition by Robert Wise with Rossana Podesta Jacques Sernas Brigitte Bardor Stanley Baker Cedric Hardwicke . TROY by wolfgang Petersen with Brad Pitt Diane Kruger Rose Byrne Orlando Bloom

Unlike the epic TROY, which spent much time and money recreating the spectacle of the Trojan War with CGI, the emphasis here is on the political ambitions and prophecies leading up to the start of the siege of Troy. Rufus Sewell as Agamemnon gives a performance (as the man who would conquer Troy) which eerily evokes Oliver Reed at his sinister best, as he makes it clear that the romance of Helen and Paris was merely a convenient excuse for the events that followed, and that the war came out of his own thirst for conquest. Sienna Guillory is attractive as Helen, but her role is rapidly reduced to that of a bystander in the great events that swirled around her. And the film makes clear its logic about this: how could a woman be responsible for a war in a time when even princesses were chattels of the royal houses to be auctioned off in marriage for political gain? As it deals more intimately with its characters and looks more closely at social power structures and gender roles of the period, this film is much more interesting as a human drama than the rather empty spectacle TROY.

The Helen of Troy miniseries on USA today failed apparently because the writer lacked the nerve to tell the classic story, and instead made up his own. Instead of using Homer's Illiad as a starting point, the TVsters seemed to turn to the 1956 film as the primary source--turning the seduction/kidnap of Helen into a big ol' love story.

So many key elements were missing: the interventions of the gods, the quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon, the killing of Patroclus in Achilles armor, Achilles subsequent killing of Hector, etc. This was the storyline of what we know of the myth of the Trojan War.

And major characters are triviliazed or disappeared: Hector's glory on TV is as a second banana to Paris; mighty Ajax gets a mention, little more; Diomedes, Nestor, Idonmoneus are absent. On the Trojan side, Aeneas, Sarpedon, Glaucus, Deiphobus and others are equally invisible.

Agamemnon is seen, not as a hero with the fatal flaw of hubris but a Hitlerian monster. Menaleas, a strong warrior in the Illiad, seems like he attended all the sensitivity training classes avaiable to the Achians, (the Greeks were referred to as "the Ageans" in the series), but wasn't much of a fighter.

But my biggest beef is with the character of Paris (Helen seemed commonplace, but acceptable). Paris was not much of a hero in the Illiad; actually, he was a bit of a feckless bounder. Helen's feelings toward him were decidedly mixed, with lust, pity, and contempt thrown together. Hector upbraided Paris on several occasions for his cowardice and sloth, but then, Paris occasionally entered the fray as an experienced soldier as well.

I sense the writers chickened out of grappling with a different kind of plot, and thereby missed an opportunity. The difficult interplay among the Greek heroes, the complicated moral choices on both sides, the tragic savagery of war, while existing to small degrees in the series, took back seat to a more or less conventional love story.

Too bad. Production values were fair, and some of the elements were there to make something better.

In connection with mythology, our class was given the opportunity to view the film, Helen of Troy, last July 26 to August 2, 2005. Helen of Troy, released during the year 2003, is a movie produced by Ted Kurdyla and directed by John Kent Harrison. It was based on Homer's "Iliad" and its primary focus is "The Trojan War", which is one of the greatest stories in Ancient Literature. The film involves the story of Helen, the most beautiful woman in the world, being married to Menelaus in a land called Sparta. When Prince Paris comes to seek peace with Sparta, Helen falls madly in love with him and follows him to Troy. Enraged, Menelaus calls upon the Greek army to fulfill the oath they once swore: to defy anyone who stole Helen. From thus, the battle for Helen's love was started, putting the lives of many great warriors at stake. Although, the story presented a different plot from the text, people who haven't read it would be able to grasp the main idea from the movie. I was disappointed by the way the writers portrayed the character of Achilles, especially his line: "I stand before High King Agamemnon". Achilles was not under anyone, not even the highest of Kings; he cared for his own skin and fought for his own glory. Making him faithful to Agamemnon and responsible for no one else was a mistake because it means to show there were no other people involved who concerned Achilles. I also did not like the reason the writers made for Achilles killing Hector. According to the text, Achilles kills Hector to avenge his best friend's death – not to save Agamemnon. Another significant difference was Helen begging for the body of Hector from Agamemnon, which was wrong; I believe it's important that Priam, Hector's father, was the one who asked for his son's body from Achilles because it shows that despite all the people Achilles has killed, there was still compassion left in the heart of even the most ruthless warrior. What worked particularly well for the film was the focus on Helen's royal family; it explained a lot about Helen's background, thus giving the audience more information than in the text.

I give this movie, a final rating of 4. The setting, effects and the cinematography was great. It made me feel as if it's the exact place where the battle happened. Helen of Troy is a movie that immediately captures its audience, engraving into their hearts the message it wishes to impart, which is: there will always be people who are ready to fight, whether it be for love of country, love of glory, or simply loving someone.

As a big fan of mythology and the Iliad, I'm pretty surprised by how nitpicky people are being on the details. Having taken a "Mythology in Film" course, I can safely state the following:

1) It's not supposed to be "The Iliad," it's "Helen of Troy." 2) It's a film. Made 3,000 years later. Targeted at an entirely different audience. 3) Greek mythology tends to be greatly inconsistent anyway, depending on your source. 4) Patroklus is never mentioned to justify Achilles's rage against Hector. So what? If Achilles hadn't withdrawn from war, he would've killed Hector anyways. And having him withdrawing and re-entering into the war would only have distracted from the main story (Helen) without really adding anything.

There's a difference between myths and literature. One can stray from the literature of a story while staying true to the mythology of it. The Iliad itself was constantly being reinvented by generations of oral poets who changed the story every time they performed it. Back in ancient times, a person who merely recited the story verbatim would be considered an inferior, because he'd merely be a copycat rather than a storyteller.

When it comes to the spirit and tradition, "Helen" shines. For instance, in the Iliad, Achilles compares Agamemnon taking Brisius to Paris taking Helen. In the film, the comparison is made literal. Brilliant. Then you have themes and scenes taken from the Orestia. Three or four different ideas are brought together in the span of one.

"Helen" may be a bit loose with the details, but it shows a good understanding why those details took place, and stays true to capturing their motivations. Just because they don't follow the material exactly doesn't mean they don't know it really, really well. The same is true for a lot of other film productions, from "Desire Under the Elms" to "O Brother Where Art Thou" to "Medea" and even "Clash of the Titans."

All and all, a good flick, I was pleasantly surprised. My only real complaints was the casting of Achilles (I assume they were combining his character with Ajax/Diomedes) and the fact that Hector never gets to actually beat anyone in combat (That was disappointing, to say the least).