9khjxz

Doing re-makes may be attractive to the uncreative directors who can't come up with an idea of their own; but doing re-makes may also be a tricky business: You always have an original measure against. Now doing re-makes of Jeremy Irons is brave indeed. I only now saw the film and was left with the feeling that some people don't really know where they get into. It would be more prudent to imitate comic books or second-rate performances by third-class actors. The problem with doing a remake of Brideshead Revisited on screen is that the original is darn good. Attempting a remake would demand a whole battery of Emma Thompsons and most of all a better direction and writing.

Lovely Julia, by the way! One day, all women will look like that!

Recent Hollywood epics are usually not as good as older versions. This film is an exception. Unusually good for the era of comic book superheroes.

All the cast is superb. Main, secondary and even large scenes were very good. A prime king Priam, an excellent Hector... Historical details seem correct at first sight. Looks like homework was done, this time. KUDOS for the whole team! This is important. As in so many things in life, details make the difference.

I am a fan of Brad Pitt, because he's a good movie barometer. There are good actors that participate is bad movies. Brad Pitt doesn't. I guess that's just not his style.

This is a fine movie to watch. This could almost be an epic.. but unfortunately, Hollywood insists on spoiling otherwise excellent artistic production with the most crude incompetence on historical data.

Medieval history, as all recorded history is incomplete. We know some things.. we are not quite sure of others.. and there are many things we actually do not know. 800 years old history is obscure enough for unknown details to be romanticized. But there are also things we do know and this film has no respect for those. Filling the gaps with creativity is OK.. disregarding historical facts and then sell the film for a quality product is not OK. In this respect, this film is a fraud.

Filming on historical issues and using real historical characters bears a responsibility that Hollywood, even Ridley Scott, is unworthy of. Any similarity of the argument of this film with historical truth is not mere coincidence.. it's sheer fraud.

The argument could be free of historical names and characters. That would be a good option for a director uncommited to historical detail. Then, any story could be told.. as fiction, of course. But to use historical characters in a film that crudely ignores historical confirmed facts is a particularly mean sort of incompetence: the sort that results from low intellectual standards. Art is, or should be, associated with high intellectual standards. Ridley Scott, and Hollywood in general, proved once again that they are not artists. They are very good artisans. There is a difference.