Troy Director's Cut

Gunther_Gloop

I'm not sure if this should be in the review section or here, but since i'd rather start a discussion on it than a single review I thought it's best here..

I finally got a chance to watch the Director's Cut or TROY the other day (196minutes). I have to say I think it's the best big budget "action film" I can think of.

Since I had already enjoyed the first release, I don't know why so many others seem not to like the film. I'm not sure that this version would make a difference to someone who didn't like the other version. In fact I'd guess it wouldn't.
But still, in my opinion at least, it's a great film. Then and now.

I don't like all the actors, but the story and the characters themselves are much bigger than any of the individual actors.

The main reason I guess a lot of people didn't like it is that they didn't know who they should be rooting for. Still, I think this is the main reason why it is so good -even though it's hard to 'believe' in a time & place so removed, all these characters are so real, with all their warts and flaws.

Goodies and baddies is childsplay -it's much easier to present one side of a story then tell the audience "ok, now you know this side... the other side is AGAINST everything these people stand for" ...most such stories are really only HALF a plot. That's the way most stories are told these days -they're like a sports match where your team is picked for you in advance, you pay for your ticket, cheer for that team, then go home elated.
As someone who has never gotten excited about just about any sport or never had a "favourite team", I think this is possibly why I find it easy to relate to the non-one-sided nature of a film like Troy.
(Not that everyone who is or isn't into sport shares or disagrees with any of this -just giving one possibility.)

Some of the additions in the director's cut I could've taken or left behind. I think the original already had most of what was important. The main additions that were for the better in this one I think were in the build up to the initial invasion -there's a bigger/better sense of foreboding in this version.
The addition of slightly more tits & thrusts is nice, but not really essential to this film.

I hear enough ravings from everyone else about films I think are mediocre or crap so I just felt the need to tell someone about my point of view anyway.

What did you think of either version? Have you changed your mind on it after seeing this Director's Cut? (As I say, I doubt anyone would one way or the other)

spank_inferno

It was ok... and just ok.
The casting was good but for Orlando Bloom & the actress who played Helen
(neither of which can act)
Performances were pretty decent though, a bit unfortunate that in any given scene O'toole/Cox/Gleeson completly outshone Pitt/Bana/Bloom.
Action again fine, but fairly pedestrian

I would have given it 5/10

Gillie

Havn't seen the Cut.
Thought Cox was amazing as always in the movie!

missingtime

Absolutely awful film.

There was so much bad acting and god awful lines.

The scene where Hector is fighting against "Achilles" is the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen. The whole battle stops because to guys are fighting...stupid stupid movie.

Vegeta

I have to say the first time i watched Troy I thought it was pretty crap

In the meantime I have been reading a lot of fantasy fiction (David Gemmell) and this film just made sense when I saw it on TV recently.

I now think Troy is a great film. It is very unusual for me to do a turn around like that

Gunther_Gloop

missingtime wrote: »

Absolutely awful film.

There was so much bad acting and god awful lines.

The scene where Hector is fighting against "Achilles" is the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen. The whole battle stops because to guys are fighting...stupid stupid movie.

Er, there's no battle going on at that time.
I think it's possibly the best onscreen fight I've seen. Bar none.

...Unless by "Achilles" you're talking about the "not-Achilles" Vs Hector scene. That was in a battle. I didn't notice the rest of the battle stopping though. It seems to me that the camera focussed just on that, which is not to say that everyone else there did.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that nearby individuals from both sides would stop in awe to see their personal heroes (as they see it) battle it out though.


I do think people are concentrating more on actors than on the overall story being told. This story is bigger than any of them. You shouldn't let yourself be bogged down by prejudice against the people playing the parts.

I agree about Helen especially though. She's all well & good, but much too plain/standard-goodlookin-model by today's standards. Better if they had used a more classically beautiful woman (note "woman" not girl) like a Monica Belluci/ Sophia Loren with a classical Greek nose, figure, etc.
*THEN* I could've believed it a lot more.

Orlando wouldn't have been too misplaced even then though -it doesn't really matter if she's in love with him... just that he is totally infatuated/ in love/ lust with her and she wants to get out of there.

Orlando wasn't at all miscast in my opinion. More than any of the others, the qualities people don't like in him are precisely what makes him very right for the role.

missingtime

Gunther_Gloop wrote: »

...Unless by "Achilles" you're talking about the "not-Achilles" Vs Hector scene. That was in a battle. I didn't notice the rest of the battle stopping though. It seems to me that the camera focussed just on that, which is not to say that everyone else there did.
.

Yea that's the part I was talking about.

I just don't like the film at all...it reeks of amateurish film making. All style and no substance whatsoever.

When Achilles is speaking with his mother and she tells him that he will be forgotten if he doesn't take place in this war. He looks up to the sky lost in thought.
That's what Joel in friends calls "Fart Acting"

It is very bad movie.

Gunther_Gloop

missingtime wrote: »

Yea that's the part I was talking about.

I just don't like the film at all...it reeks of amateurish film making. All style and no substance whatsoever.

When Achilles is speaking with his mother and she tells him that he will be forgotten if he doesn't take place in this war. He looks up to the sky lost in thought.
That's what Joel in friends calls "Fart Acting"

It is very bad movie.

Granted there are a lot of one-shot cuts like that. I don't like them either. But I don't consider that a very good example. Achilles especially is a vain warrior, obsessed with glory and immortality. It's only right that he glory in his own glory like that.

There are other cuts to Priam and Helen and others that serve no purpose other than to show them witnessing danger elsewhere. I hate that.

Because of the quality of the story itself and the strength of the characters themselves (seperate to the actors), I think this film did a fine job overall.

Also, remember this is an ancient tale. It wouldn't do for Brad to get all ironic on us. These characters are "the originals". They can't be self aware or guarded in their reactions. The roles must be played real. Of course this opens easy doors for the cynically hilarious Joey from Friends, but sometimes things should be done that way.

quickbeam

I haven't seen the director's cut yet, but I did like the original. I think it is very underrated - I thought the acting was more than adequate in most spots - O'Toole, Bana, Pitt, Bean, etc. Even Orlando Bloom was just about adequate. He IS a bad actor, but the melodramatic overacting did suit this character. Krueger (isn't that the name of the lady playing Helen?) wasn't that memorable but she wasn't so dire that it spoiled it for me.

The final showdown between Achilles and Hector was breathtaking - the action was fantastic, and not knowing the story made me genuinely unsure as to the outcome (usually in such situations the outcome is assured - the goodie and highest billed actor always wins out). If nothing else the film deserves praise for that sequence.

I wouldn't call it my most favourite film of all time, but it was better than most people give it credit for.

manicmonoliths

I feel that Troy is one of the most criminally overlooked films of the last few years. I thought the acting was superb with the exceptions of Pitt and Bloom. Dialouge was great, action was fantastic, probably the best fight scenes I've ever seen in a movie!
I thought it was very faithful to the original source aswell, while it would have been tempting to change a lot in order to make the film flow better(I admit it does drag in places), the director left in some of the mythological references aswell without having them intervene directly in the plot as they did in the Iliad which again I thought was good.
All in all an excellent film. It sits proudly in my DVD collection.

Vokes

Gunther_Gloop wrote:

I don't like all the actors, but the story and the characters themselves are much bigger than any of the individual actors.

I get what you're saying but...

...I was very disappointed with Pitt cast as Achilles in this one. Just felt that he didn't have the massive presence, metaphorically and figuratively, that the character of Achilles requires. In my mind Achilles is simply this massive physically imposing killer of men - and Pitt...well, i dunno, his performance was a bit flat plus I didn't think he had the physical stature that was needed.

Aside from that, Bana as Prince Hektor was superb and their one-on-one battle was class.

Overall the film wasn't bad. I think a lot of its success would have been dependant on the performances of the 2 aforementioned actors - and I don't think Pitt delivered.

This directors cut of Troy has me intrigued though - might check it out to see if it holds up any better.

Vegeta wrote:

I have to say the first time i watched Troy I thought it was pretty crap

In the meantime I have been reading a lot of fantasy fiction (David Gemmell) and this film just made sense when I saw it on TV recently.

I now think Troy is a great film. It is very unusual for me to do a turn around like that

Agreed, Gemmell's Troy books are pretty good - I'd highly recommend them to fans of all things Troy..

kdevitt

missingtime wrote: »

When Achilles is speaking with his mother and she tells him that he will be forgotten if he doesn't take place in this war. He looks up to the sky lost in thought.
That's what Joel in friends calls "Fart Acting"

It is very bad movie.

Thats the exact way I described Pitts stare up into the sky in the movie - it was exactly like Joey's acting lesson he gave:D

Dreadful steaming pile of poo of a movie - thought so when I saw it in the cinema, and again last week. Oh - I'm a big fan of brian Cox, but he was woeful in this imo.

I've never encountered anyone who thought it was remotely decent until I read this thread.

Serious question - are all you fans of the movie girls?

Gunther_Gloop

kdevitt wrote: »

Serious question - are all you fans of the movie girls?

I had to read that sentence a few times to understand it. I was wondering if there was a movie called Girls.

Another reason I'm picking up for its poor reception is possibly its lack of irony. Perhaps cinemagoers are too cynical or self-aware these days to take a straight-up tale of action/adventure. There are no "Asta La Vista Baby" moments. No wry winks to the audience. No hint that perhaps the characers here know that they have been lampooned many times before this movie was even made. (?)

I'm not blaming or bad-mouthing people for not liking it of course. I'm just trying to understand why.


-Kevin.

Gingervitis

I hate the movie because I was forced to read read the Iliad in school. Therefore, it is retarded with the liberties it takes in the text. Menelaus dying?! grrrr...

Gunther_Gloop

Gingervitis wrote: »

I hate the movie because I was forced to read read the Iliad in school. Therefore, it is retarded with the liberties it takes in the text. Menelaus dying?! grrrr...

The Trojan Horse isn't in the Illiad either. And Agememnon doesn't meet his end in that way either. What'ya gonna do?

It was plain from the start that this film was based on The Illiad and parts of Virgil. Being a movie, there needed to be conclusions or there would've been far too many loose ends and further moans. It would have taken at least 2 more movies easily to tell more of the tale (which is many tales) and even then there'd be complaints of short-shrift to many characters.

I'd gladly take more of the same, but I can't see it happening especially now, so I'm happy they did what they did.

missingtime

kdevitt wrote: »

Thats the exact way I described Pitts stare up into the sky in the movie - it was exactly like Joey's acting lesson he gave:D

Dreadful steaming pile of poo of a movie - thought so when I saw it in the cinema, and again last week. Oh - I'm a big fan of brian Cox, but he was woeful in this imo.

I've never encountered anyone who thought it was remotely decent until I read this thread.

Serious question - are all you fans of the movie girls?

Thank god someone is with me here.

I'm glad everyone else here enjoyed the movie, I just don't understand why