Helena de Tróia

I disagree with the reviewer who thinks Paris is prettier than Helen. Sienna Guillory is gorgeous! As in the Iliad Paris & Helen are a matched pair. I also disagree with the reviewer who panned the movie because it was not faithful to the Iliad. No movie, not even a TV miniseries, can be expected to be totally faithful to any book. A movie is always a selection. The question should not be what was omitted, or whether it compressed or altered the text for cinematic purposes. Of course it did! The question is whether or not it captured the spirit of the original, or whether it did violence to that spirit, as too many movies do. In my view this movie captured the spirit of the Iliad surprisingly well. Perhaps the Greek heroes, especially Agamemnon, do not come off as heroically as the modern viewer has come to expect. But then our idea of heroism, (confused as it too often is with idealism), is not Homer's; and, then again, this movies portrayal of the Greeks as devious aggressors plotting the conquest of Troy is both historically accurate and does nothing to distort Homer's portrait of them. He certainly would have agreed. I did feel that the movie became somewhat rushed at the end. Unfortunately, this seems to be a common problem with many movies based on classic works of literature. The director seems to lavish most of his energy and resources on the beginning and middle of the story. Then, as time and money begin to run out, the ending becomes hurried, episodes are combined, the story becomes perilously compressed. But even here, the movie does not really leave the viewer disappointed. The scene in which the Trojan Horse suddenly appears without explanation outside the walls of Troy is particularly effective, because it appears to the viewer just as it must have appeared to the Trojans. Even though one may wish for more, nothing in the movie's ending distorts Homer's tale of the fall of Ilium.

There were several images that were important in the movie. Helen really stood out to be the most beautiful woman at that time but there were a lot of differences from the text. In the movie, what she showed the audience was a childish lady who suddenly turns into a flirt. Sometimes, it is also hard to grasp her true emotions probably because this flirt image has enveloped her identity in the movie. What I admired about Paris was not his cute face. It is true that he looks fit for the character of Paris but what's more to that is you could see in his face his passion for whatever he's doing and saying. The image of a "pretty boy" was really fit for him. I am very fascinated with how Agamemnon was able to internalize his character very well. He portrayed a king who was really greedy but also showed a soft side. His facial expressions were also stunning especially his eyes. His portrayal of Agamemnon's character was constant all throughout the movie. Menelaus' identity was hard to depict because his identity in the Iliad was not totally exposed. What was admirable in him in the movie was his being a nice man or prince. I saw in him the change from the beginning of the movie to the end. You could see in him his sincerity in changing. Although Hector only had a small part, he was able to show the audience a noble Trojan. His image in the movie was different from the original text. He was not the strongest Trojan and he was even overpowered by his brother, Paris. Achilles was a totally different character. He was just a war and bloodthirsty warrior in the movie. It's as if he's just a bully in Helen of Troy.

The technical aspects for me were not that good. The voices were hardly audible. Sometimes, it's as if the actors and actresses were just murmuring to each other although the background music was suitable for the movie. It made you imagine what it was like before and how it felt during that time. There were scenes that were too dark that the characters could not be seen anymore but the shade of colors used were suitable for the time being illustrated in the movie. There were angles wherein a character was blocking someone else and it made it so hard to feel and see what's really happening but there were also shots that were nice. This was particular with the wooden horse. The angle of the shot made the wooden horse look so majestic and the audience would really be at awe with how the Greeks were able to come up with that plan and how they were able to make that wooden horse.

Overall, Helen of Troy is something worthwhile to watch not only because of Paris' look but also because the movie gave explanations on how things came to be and it brought its audience closer to the "reality" of the Iliad.

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).

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.

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.