Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: Scott on May 15, 2004, 08:26:11 PM

Title: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Scott on May 15, 2004, 08:26:11 PM
TROY (2004) - Wow, just seen this new release starring Brad Pitt as Achilles. Now this is how you make an epic film. No CGI images that I could notice and Brad Pitt is awsome in this incredible film. Anyone who likes sword and sandal type films must not miss this one. Everything from the story, action, and dialogue is very good. They have thousands of people in this film and the city of troy is cool as are the Spartan ships.

(http://www.canalstars.fr/canalstars/canalstars.nsf/0/11ADE5292A2A4F0EC1256D90004C0FE5/$file/brad-pitt_photo2_280803.jpg)

Don't miss this one on the big screen. You won't be dissappointed. I rate it up there with CONAN THE BARBARIAN and GLADIATOR.



Post Edited (05-15-04 20:26)
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Lars on May 16, 2004, 12:10:56 AM
Well Scott,

I just returned home after viewing the movie "Troy" too. The only thing that kept me in the theater for the duration of the film was the knowledge that Brad Pitt's character would die. Unfortunately that happened in the last few moments of the film ( as I so intensely hated Pitt's performance- a blonde haired blue eyed Greek Hollywood hunk?). In fact I didn't see one actor portraing a Greek who even remotely looked Greek.

This was a $400 million B-movie Brad Pitt vehicle. Everything about "Troy" is second rate including the soundtrack. Bring back Dino De Laurentis for this varity of cheese. The problem is it was so bland that it isn't "so bad it's good".

I hope the boobs who made this stinker loose their shirts because they wasted my hard earned money and my time. Hollywood is clearly unable to produce a real epic film as they must pander to the mass market of fools.

Peter O'Tool may be in this film but "Troy" is no "Lawerence of Arabia".

Lars

Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Chopper on May 16, 2004, 08:26:34 AM
wow well put man. i probably wont catch it myself. after Spartacus i'm pretty tired of seeing films with men running around in scantily clad leather.



Post Edited (05-19-04 15:38)
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Michael on May 16, 2004, 01:45:26 PM
Lars wrote:

> Well Scott,
>
> I just returned home after viewing the movie "Troy" too. The
> only thing that kept me in the theater for the duration of the
> film was the knowledge that Brad Pitt's character would die.
> Unfortunately that happened in the last few moments of the film
> ( as I so intensely hated Pitt's performance- a blonde haired
> blue eyed Greek Hollywood hunk?). In fact I didn't see one
> actor portraing a Greek who even remotely looked Greek.
>
> This was a $400 million B-movie Brad Pitt vehicle. Everything
> about "Troy" is second rate including the soundtrack. Bring
> back Dino De Laurentis for this varity of cheese. The problem
> is it was so bland that it isn't "so bad it's good".
>
> I hope the boobs who made this stinker loose their shirts
> because they wasted my hard earned money and my time. Hollywood
> is clearly unable to produce a real epic film as they must
> pander to the mass market of fools.
>
> Peter O'Tool may be in this film but "Troy" is no "Lawerence of
> Arabia".
>
> Lars
>


Lars, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about the movie!
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: smengie on May 16, 2004, 08:21:21 PM
>Unfortunately that happened in the last few moments of the film ( as I so intensely >hated Pitt's performance- a blonde haired blue eyed Greek Hollywood hunk?). In >fact I didn't see one actor portraing a Greek who even remotely looked Greek.

     I hate to tell you this but homer himself described Helen as blonde, as well as her husband Menelaus, while Odysseus is a redhead. Modern greeks have more in common with modern Turks than they do with acient Spartans and Athenians and so on.
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Kory on May 17, 2004, 12:10:35 AM
Being a female in her mid-twenties, I don't get easily tired of this trend.  It doesn't make a good movie, but eye candy is nice once in a while (i.e. SWAT).

:)
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Susan on May 17, 2004, 07:01:00 PM
This film just looks boring - like a gladiator wanna-be only from what i hear pitt is sporting that horrible accent

Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Eirik on May 17, 2004, 10:11:06 PM
The Washington Post review of this movie made a good point: Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, and Orlando Bloom starring in a movie with thousands of sweaty, half naked men on the beach...  it's the ultimate gay date movie.
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Scott on May 17, 2004, 11:43:43 PM
Ouch ! Guess you all didn't like it very much.  : )

We went as a family to see this film and we all enjoyed it. The best film we have seen in the theater since LORD OF THE RINGS (the third one).



Post Edited (05-18-04 00:13)
Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: Zilla on May 18, 2004, 10:44:55 AM
I agree with you Lars after the first half an hour I started to get bored. There is not enough story to keep the thing going for 2 hours, it's a Brad Pitt vehicle.  Most of all the only reason it was made was so the boys could play with their new toy the CGI army, scene after bloody scene of it, was there any story at all? It was used to better effect in Lord of the Rings and speaking of which didn't you just expect Sean Bean to stick his head round the corner when Achille's got shot in the chest and say "I know just how you feel"  The only things good about it was Sean Bean and Peter O'toole.  Did anybody else notice Agemennom's occasional scottish accent or was it me?
Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: Scott on May 18, 2004, 11:36:18 AM
If CGI was used in this film then they have come along way in using it as I remember STAR WARS and THE MUMMY films and some other recent films not using it as well at all, not as TROY has done.  As far as the story I thought each of the legendary characters was a movie unto itself. Did it all fall neatly into place culminating into some complete final story ending, perhaps not, but each character had there own story.

Speaking of CGI  GLADIATOR had some real bad CGI. In TROY it isn't nearly as noticable if at all. Again well done. If this was CGI then it has reached a new level.



Post Edited (05-18-04 14:45)
Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: frannie on May 18, 2004, 01:45:32 PM
Zilla wrote:

> Did anybody else notice Agemennom's occasional scottish accent or was it me?

I noticed Glaucus'.
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Max Gardner on May 18, 2004, 05:36:27 PM
Disappointing. I'd go so far as to say crappy. At $200 million, Troy is one of the most expensive movies ever made, but the whole production comes across as half-assed. The battle scenes are big and loud, but not exciting. The script is articulate, but not intelligent. And its lack of character relative to Gladiator, the closest movie to which I can draw any comparisons with Troy, doesn't help when you're watching this for three hours.  The Greeks, particularly Agamemnon, are portrayed as bloodthirsty a***oles, while the Trojans are clearly meant to be sympathetic.  It's not particularly faithful  to either The Illiad or recorded history (Helen was in love with Paris? Menelaus was an abusive husband? The Trojan War took place over the course of about three weeks instead of, y'know, ten years?).  And I'm a card-carrying atheist, but it's a shame to see an adaptation of The Illiad in which the gods are not only taken out of the action entirely, but disrespected by the characters.  Troy is not gory enough to satisfy on a visceral level, nor is it smart enough to be intellectually stimulating.  I like Greek history, and I like watching people beat the hell out of each other with swords.  I really wanted to like this movie, and for half an hour or so it seemed all right, but it just ended up a jumbled mess.
Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: Evan3 on May 18, 2004, 05:45:52 PM
Zilla wrote:
Did anybody else notice
> Agemennom's occasional scottish accent or was it me?


Oh no, for a second there I felt I was watching Braveheart and one of my other friends commented that he felt Sean Connery had made a cameo voice appearence. Halfway through the movie, some other college guys yelled out that Orlando Bloom (Paris) was gay and the whole theatre laughed or cheered making it seem as though this were the case.

In any case the script was AWFUL,
THe acting reflected the script (when Eric Bana gives the best performance, the movie has problems) and Brad Pitt just looked utterly bored and bloated
They didnt follow the original story at all either they butchered a real classic.

I will agree the first half hour is entertaining, but quickly, and I mean QUICKLY devolves and drags on. I want my 2.5 hours of look back.

Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Scott on May 18, 2004, 11:09:34 PM
I'm starting to wonder if I went to the same movie as you people. Are you all sure you all didn't go see BATTLEFIELD EARTH together?

Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Neville on May 20, 2004, 04:29:50 AM
I enjoyed most of it, it is a serious, well made adaptation of Homer's Iliad packed with interesting characters and great action but...

**** Warning: The folloe¡wing ramblings contain spoilers ****

What the hell happenned in the final act of the movie? All of a sudden the filmmakers seem to be afraid of their material and start introducing PC stuff. I can forgive them for being that tame with sex, but the fall of Troy is one of the most boring and aseptic assaults I have ever seen. And to turn Achilles into a soft version of an action hero? He even apologises to his servants ans slaves for having hit them! And what a sad ending for Agamenon... truly awful stuff. But the worst is that at least half of the main trojan characters survive. Eh? Look, if they didn't want to shoot certain things they should have selected another material. You just can't choose one of the most bloody, amoral (for our modern standards, that is) epic of all time and then change gears at the last moment.

Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: Zilla on May 20, 2004, 12:14:02 PM
Sorry Scott I think your on the the trojan side of the battle line here.  A little out numbered but don't worry every one loves Lord of the Rings.
Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: The Ghoul on May 20, 2004, 12:42:09 PM
Sorry, I hated Lord Of The Rings it should have had more dancing fiaries!! Okay, I kid ...it friggen ruled. Previews for Troy on the other hand seems a tad like spending an afternoon walking through a New York City YMCA shower in a small towel. Nothing wrong with liking things homo-erotic but I don't want to pay $9 and bend over at the same time. I smell a rental on Troy. I'll check out a matinee of Shrek 2 instead.
Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: BeyondTheGrave on May 20, 2004, 03:24:48 PM
i just saw troy on wed and well it still wasnt the worst movie made it was boring.  

(SPOILERS AHEAD)




when pitt was killed at the end it was so anti-climatic he was alive for 2 min. with like 4 arrows in him and could still talk ok. the winners of troy were basically the women who all lived and the priestess even killed the king.

"Dont be a fool for ur tool"
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Eirik on May 21, 2004, 08:40:59 AM
Neville:
Had the Greeks go easy on Troy and treat their slaves in an enlightened fashion?  You don't think the PC stuff was to avoid offending Greece prior to their hosting the Olympics this Summer, do you?  (Not meant to imply that it was - just a theory).

Actually, I bet Brad Pitt lobbied to have him be nice to the slaves as he probably feels his image might suffer if he were to play an flawed (in Hollywood that means EVIL) person.
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Neville on May 21, 2004, 10:50:49 AM
Eirik wrote: "Had the Greeks go easy on Troy and treat their slaves in an enlightened fashion?  You don't think the PC stuff was to avoid offending Greece
prior to their hosting the Olympics this Summer, do you?  (Not meant to imply
that it was - just a theory)."

Don't think so. You know how easily people who are against a particular movie for depicting their group in a non-PC fashion use to make a lot of noise. Didn't hear a thing about greeks talking against the movie.

He also pointed out: "Actually, I bet Brad Pitt lobbied to have him be nice to the slaves as he probably feels his image might suffer if he were to play an flawed (in
Hollywood that means EVIL) person."

Two words: Tyler Durden. Despite this, you may be right on this one.

Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: Eirik on May 21, 2004, 11:01:38 PM
"i just saw troy on wed and well it still wasnt the worst movie made it was boring.

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

when pitt was killed at the end it was so anti-climatic he was alive for 2 min. with like 4 arrows in him and could still talk ok. the winners of troy were basically the women who all lived and the priestess even killed the king."

Okay, what does it say about the education system in America that Achilles dying is considered a "spoiler"??
Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: BeyondTheGrave on May 21, 2004, 11:34:09 PM
Eirik wrote:

>
> what does it say about the education system in America
> that Achilles dying is considered a "spoiler"??

i guess i should of wrote more clearly thats not what i meant. i knew achilles was going to die i meant the way he died. he was shot with a bunch of arrows and he was still talking for a couple of mins. and the reason i wrote "spoiler ahead" because when i went to see the movie people actually were shocked when the greeks came out of the horse to attack troy. i thought i might be spoiling something for someone thats all.

"Dont be a fool for ur tool"
Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: Max Gardner on May 22, 2004, 12:50:48 AM
Yeah, when I went to see this one people were taken aback at the Trojan Horse as well as Achilles' death.  I assume these were the same people who didn't get the "u-boat captain" joke in The House of the Dead.  I was hoping this was a Delaware-only phenomenon.  The entire country can't be intellectually bankrupt, can it? Right? The Illiad and The Odyssey are required high school reading, for Pete's sake.

"READ A BOOK!" --Handy
Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: Eirik on May 22, 2004, 07:24:55 AM
"The Illiad and The Odyssey are required high school reading, for Pete's sake."

I don't know about that.  I never had to read either book in grade school, high school, or college.  Fortunately (though I didn't think so at the time) I had a dad who made the two books (and many others) required reading in his household.  I graduated HS in 1989 by the way if that tells you something about how long those books dropped off some schools' radar screens.

At least they made me read Shakespeare.
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Jay on May 22, 2004, 10:35:56 AM
But *no*, I had to suffer through "Pride And Predjudice" in HS
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on May 22, 2004, 11:55:36 AM
I have no interest in seeing this. Having had to suffer reading Homer's "Iliad" in a school class, is all the "Troy," I ever want to see or hear.

I will say, if one is interested in the subject, one might see if one can find an old episode of "Xena; Warrrior Princess," which put Xena and Gabrielle at the fall of Troy. As far as I can remember, what made this story somewhat more interesting then the other versions of Troy, was the feminist take on the story.

I would also like to add, that I have heard that the sailing of the Greek fleet is CGI.

Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: Ash on May 22, 2004, 03:18:15 PM
I had to read The Oddysey in high school and I forgot what it was about!

Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Eirik on May 22, 2004, 11:49:25 PM
"I will say, if one is interested in the subject, one might see if one can find an old episode of "Xena; Warrrior Princess," which put Xena and Gabrielle at the fall of Troy."

There's some dispute among historians about the impact they had on the duration of the siege and the outcome.
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: JohnL on May 23, 2004, 05:15:16 AM
I seem to recall being taught some of this in school, and the gist of it sank in, but I don't remember the story in detail.

Unless I'm thinking of something else, we were once shown a literal translation of one of Homer's poems, and it was like 5 lines long. From this they somehow got a detailed 20-30 page story of something that I couldn't even see a trace of in the poem?
Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: MJ on June 16, 2004, 05:50:00 AM
Well after reading all the opinions u guys had, im ready to give my own..

I think it was a good movie with good battle scenes... one of the most realistic ones i had ever set my eyes on (compared with lord of the rings with the orcs n stuff) And also the mixture of romance in war was pretty unique... I guess the REAL achilles wouldnt be blond... but this is hollywood hey? if u're good looking u get the role sorta way...

but i think the director did a good job, they had to change the movie a bit of course, because most of homer's iliad is based on gods... like apollo , athena and aphrodite, and how helen was borned from an egg??!! if they included the personified gods in Troy, the movie would have been a whole lot worst... i still stand by it as a good movie... it didnt bore me.... but people have different opinions.. so its up to the individual...
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: The Burgomaster on June 16, 2004, 01:48:24 PM
I haven't seen the movie yet, but the trailer looked like they used a LOT of CGI.  Those big battle scenes with the two armies clashing seemed to be infested with CGI.  Now I just need to go out and see the damned movie.

Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: RobGraves on June 16, 2004, 03:12:45 PM
This movie put half our audience to sleep. I was surprised that the screen didn't have big bushy eyebrows and a swinging pocketwatch.

Sleep.....waste your money...sleeeeep.......
Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Susan on June 17, 2004, 10:40:08 PM
CGI is going to take over the world. Soon actors will all be cgi and the real actors will be paid lots of money just to do voiceovers. I can't stand the overuse of cgi, it's like watching a video game onscreen. I demand cheesy effects! I demand thousands of real live extras in battle scenes!

Title: Re: Troy (2004) ****
Post by: Fearless Freep on June 18, 2004, 10:56:05 AM
CGI is going to take over the world. Soon actors will all be cgi and the real actors will be paid lots of money just to do voiceovers


Why not?  The actors are just stand ins for the vision of the writer and director anyway?  I'm sure they would be perfectly happy to have CG actors  that would actually do what they wanted, without egos, demands, script re-writes, etc..

Title: Re: Troy (2004)
Post by: tasha on June 18, 2004, 03:34:38 PM
I totally noticed that! The movie almost made me cry...because of how bad it was.