It’s one of my favorite modern movies. I thought Pitt did a splendid job. Just the right amount of confidence and skill. I was completely hooked from the passing lung stab of the giant onward. I also liked the quip to the young boy who said he wouldn’t want to fight the giant: “And that is why no one will remember your name.” Which brings me to a part of it that did seem historically accurate to me, and has no real parallel in modern times — the notion of a name having meaning as both an identity and a reputation. Along the line of Jesus saying to ask for something in His name. Names were important back then, as much a part of the person as his hands and feet. So, 3-1/2 stars from me.
As a adaptation of the Iliad, it irked me excessively, especially toward the end, but as a film about a lot of extremely attractive men running around in little blue miniskirts, it was exceptional!
I have not yet seen 300.
I must have been watching a different film, because I thought Pitt’s acting was laughably bad. My best friend and I still crack each other up by repeating that stupid line from the commercials, “Immortality! Take it! It’s yours!”
Not adding a whole lot, but I agree with most of what has been said. I enjoyed the film, but many of the historical accuracies and lack of plot cohesion makes it difficult to rank it highly among other historical epics.
FWIW, I thought the casting was pretty good especially, as others have said, with Priam, Hector, and Odyseus; I cannot imagine anyone doing a better job with any of them. I think they could have done better with Achilles and Paris.
I was a little disappointed with Brad Pitt, simply because he doesn’t project the image of an immortal warrior (the way, for instance, Arnold did as Conan, or Sly did as Rambo). I thought he did a good job with what he was given, but I think the role was ultimately poorly written. Paris was completely detestable, and completely flopped for me… not at all like I remember from the poem. I don’t know whether to blame Orlando Bloom or the writing, but it’s probably some of both.
When I first saw the film, I was a rather peeved they’d removed the intervention of the gods. Then again, that may have made the film over-bearing because they’d then have a whole pantheon (no pun intended) of additional characters to deal with when they already have a lot as it is. It simply wouldn’t have been managable in anything short of a four hour film.
I also found the interpretation of Achilles’ death rather underwhelming. It seemed so anti-climatic that this guy, Paris, who seemed like such a sissy the whole movie is able to topple the mighty Achilles without the intervention of the gods.
Also, as others have said, I also found precisely zero sympathy for the Trojans, but in the Illiad, from Homer’s perspective, they’re the heroes, and I remember being able to see both sides. But in the film, only Hector seemed any bit heroic.
On the positive side, I thought all of the action sequences were excellent (the death of Achiles aside). If I’m watching the film more as an action flick than a historical epic, it would rank fairly well (I’d say about 3 stars). However, with the pre-existing knowledge of the story, it’s less enjoyable simply because I know what I’m missing, so more like 2 1/2 in that case.
I remember hoping that Paris would kill Achilles in the manner he did in the stories, perhaps by shooting an arrow into his ankle and it simply not healing well, so that he slowly weakens until the end of the movie, then dies making a last stand or something.
Well, it didn’t follow the poem exactly (though the beginning was close), but I imagine that made it more historically accurate, not less, if for no other reason then I don’t the real Trojan War had goddesses wisking people to and from the battlefield every five minutes.
Actually, I saw that as believable because Achilles was pretty full of himself and we all know that one thing the gods don’t like is hubris. So having him die by being killed in from a distance by the sissy boy seemed like the type of punishment the gods would handout.
And I was the first to mention 300 in post 11. Yep, good movie. 
you gota read your Iliad closer – there’s not really a lot of goddess-stealing of heroes from the battlefield.
The film;'s not really [atrticularly close to the poem in LOTS of places. Don’t even begi n to rely on it for the details of the plotm, because a couple of things right will just set you up to be dumped by the next wromng thing.
And the only thing the film has going for it in terms of plausibility ids the laxck of gods. it’s not clear to me that tyhis is a good thing. I liked the Armand Assante /Hallmark/ Nicholas Meyer TV version of The Odyssey, gods and all.
Drinking again, Cal? 
Aw, don’t pick on him. He made me feel less self-conscious about my typo.
I was disappointed by the lack of gods and the other plot changes from the original story. Nevertheless I thought the casting was good and many individual scenes were excellent. Especially the scene in which Paris faces Menelaus - the tension of facing certian death is captured perfectly, as is the heartbreaking regret that Hector must feel watching the scene. Well done. And Hector and Achilles battle is also particularly good, it is so “one-on -one” and reminds me of one of my favortie poems, Muir’s Battle of Hector in Hades.
I liked it more than I thought it would. Pitt really suprised me and Banna and O’Toole were great.
What really bugged me throughout the film was the fact that their armor was clearly painted rubber. It was pretty cheap stuff.
I also hate, and not just in this film, where the leader guy turns to his army and says “You will live through history! Bla bla bla”. Umm, yeah we know your name dude but that 57th guy with a spear is still a nobody.
Heh, Homer actually makes a pretty decent effort to name them all in the Poem. About 90% of the text is what so-and-so’s name is and where exactly the spear that killed him went.
Do you know the name of the 57th spear carrier without looking it up?
Didn’t think so.
was just a joke friend 
I always thought the Iliad’s style of giving the name and family tree of every minor character just before they were gutted was amusing. It’s been a long time, but in my memory anyways, this takes up a big portion of the text of the poem.
(supposedly the reason is that the nobility in Homer’s time enjoyed tracing their lineage back to the minor players in the Iliad, and so people who made their living reciting it would make sure to include them when reciting at their court/hall/castle/whatever.
Spartacus, wasn’t it?
That’s me! I’m famous!
Speaking as a straight woman, absolutely not!
Let me see. You’re a princess who’s chosen to become a virgin priestess. It makes sense – there’s more opportunity for power and a lot less chance you’ll be married off to someone you don’t care for for the sake of politics. You’re captured by your country’s mortal enemy and are about to be handed over to be gang-raped. But wait! Achilles is willing to take you for his personal slave which means you’ll only be raped by one guy not 20. You’re alone with him; you’re about to lose your eligibility for virgin priestess, and what do you do, being a woman used to power and prestige? You fall madly in love with him, of course! :rolleyes:
Sorry, that whole subplot bothered me, but it was one of many things including the sun’s habit of rising in the west, the Great Balls of Fire, to quote Jerry Lee Lewis, and the army of thousands with no supply line. I took a friend who writes military fiction to see this movie when it first came out and it’s still a running joke.
I guess I’m glad someone liked it. Sorry about being the nay-sayer.
I’ve never read Homer so I always feel a bit uncultured when people discuss actual details of it.
Is Homer accurate in those names or did he purposfully throw in names to be found. I looked it up and the 57th spear dude was Waldo.