tanman

I'm chiming in kinda late but it seems that most here have the same opinion of it. It really suffered from that fatal characteristic of mediocrity. It could have been a great epic (although I admit I don't know specifically how) or it could have been a great mindless popcorn action summer blockbuster. But it pulls a Pearl Harbor and tries to stradle the line and ends up falling.

Some parts were done extremely well such as. Achilles vs. Hector and Daddy Hector pleading with Achilles. And overall the fight scenes were well done but I found myself wondering "Why in the heck are they fighting?" First it is for a girl, then it is for revenge, then it is for glory, then it is to uphold family honor, then it is to take revenge for destroying the temple. . . and so on and so forth. They also stopped fighting inexplicably. When Hector lead a raid on the Greek army and just because he killed a man they all stop fighting? I didn't buy into it and that is Achilles Heel (yes I had to say it) of the movie. I just didn't buy many reasons given for the fighting, which is really important in this kind of movie. That may have been in part due to the acting. Some of it was good, some bad, but most of it was just too "contemporary"

Overall it was just okay. It wasn't bad enough that I want everyone else to hate it. If you liked it more power to you. But it just didn't separate itself enough to call it a good movie.

I don't know if anyone is listening at this point but that is my take on it.

n0fear88

im seeing a fair bit of praise for Mr. Bana as there should be, he's great! yea!

mike45

This may be off the subject, but from the Alexander pic, at least they got the tack right, no stirrups. Russell Crowe was riding around in Gladiator with a horse with stirrups. They weren't around in both ancient Greece or ancient Rome. They came to Europe about 700-800A.D. I haven't seen Troy. So I don't know if the're in that movie. I guess movie makers put them in because it's easier for the actors to ride the horses with stirrups.