Arpi_K

Seeing the flaws in this movie is much easier than seeing anything else.

1. It was long, 2. the computer graphics werent that good, 3. & the acting was horrible. Brad Pitt was acting more like a cartoon character with his silly facial expressions, & his accent was terrible. In my opinion an actor's looks shouldnt matter as much as his/her performance this applies to both Pitt & Kruger who i think were the main causes for the negative reviews. Another thing I found the plot very weak. Paris & Hellen didnt look really "in love" i.e. (from the movie point of view) no reason for war, why Priam kept Helen, why Achilles was fighting, why did anyone in the movie bother to do anything? So for such a long movie it could've been "related" to the original Illiad. 4. Another thing that really annoyed me what kind of idiots does Peterson thinks us? the whole war, gathering armies, going to Troy takes one year. PLEASE!

Did i like this movie? yeah well i didn't "hate" it there are really great talents Eric Bana, Peter O'Toole, Saffron Burrows (perfect acting), and Rose Byrne.. the battle scenes are nice... It's an O.K. movie but if u miss it ur not missing anything

Although I've wanted to see this movie since the day it came out, somehow I managed to see it only two days ago, and boy did I regret not seeing it before. Both John Travolta & Dustin Hoffman gave a great performance. Both characters had true depth. The story itself is quite realistic (especially now more than in 97), and can happen to any one of us. A guy is fired from work and is fed up with everything so he goes to talk to his boss. Things get ugly, he manages to take some hostages & gets himself in an even bigger rut. Being unlike most Hollywood cliches with its sad ending it certainly stands out. I'd give it 9/10

When i saw this movie years ago i liked it but i thought it was more romantic than horror. The cast was great especially Anthony Hopkins & Winona Ryder. Gary Oldman wasn't bad but if he looked creepier in the London scenes(he looked too innocent for Dracula). After reading the novel i came to the conclusion that the movie had no right to be called "Bram Stoker's" Dracula. If they had stuck to the original story it would have been better. They told the same story up till the first 5 or six chapters. The violence was ok it "is" a horror movie about vampires it has to have blood. Anyway the movie's gonna take you 3 hours to watch, the book three days to read. Do both then draw your own conclusions.