Rate Troy

[barsoomcore]

No, in The Mummy Returns only one side was CGI.

I believe you're thinking of the final battle scene, as opposed to the opening battle scene (with the Rock), in which there were definitely shots in which both sides were digital. Not done using quite the same techniques as nowadays (I believe they digitally "copied" live plates to create the crowds -- rather than generate the little fellas out of whole cloth) but very much the same sorts of shots. And still non-existent people.

I wasn't specifically bemoaning CGI effects.

But even so, is this technique somehow off limits now? That's how medieval armies fought, but filmmakers can't show it but once or twice? How else are movies going to depict epic battles?

They can show it as often as they like. I'm just saying it's not in and of itself jaw-dropping any more, and I definitely felt that the battle scenes in Troy lacked because of anything ELSE being provided. The lack of tension was not at all counteracted by seeing impressive special effects, because they just aren't that impressive any more.

The first few times you see a particular TYPE of effect (which "large numbers of people" is) you're impressed by the effect alone. But if there's not some serious story-telling going on that the effect is in support of, then once you've gotten used to the effect itself, it has no... er, effect.

That sounded smarter when I started that sentence. I hope you get the point.

I think the story-telling in Troy was not what it should have been, and because of that, the shots that were so impressive in RotK carried much less impact. My comment was really just a jibe at Peterson, implying that he expected me to be so impressed with the effect alone that he didn't bother trying to invest it with very much emotion, as Jackson so triumphantly did. Watching Troy one of my most common reactions was, "Well that wasn't as good as the same shot in Return of the King." Which suggests that the story-telling in Troy wasn't getting the job done, because shouldn't I be so caught up in the story that such things don't occur to me?

Then we get into "It's the audience's fault if they're not paying attention" battle and I've already fought that one, thank you very much.

A final clarification -- I'm not objecting to the situation of armies clashing in a particular manner -- I'm just saying that this particular depiction of that situation is no longer a new and exciting thing to see in and of itself. Again, I felt that many of the shots in Troy were pretty much just LIFTED from RotK, only with Greek guys instead of orcs, Rohirrim, Gondorians and so on.

If you haven't got powerful story-telling, give me new fireworks. But limpid storytelling combined with "seen-it-before" shots equals snore.

 

[Kai Lord]

I believe you're thinking of the final battle scene, as opposed to the opening battle scene (with the Rock), in which there were definitely shots in which both sides were digital.

You're right, I was thinking of the end battle with the Magi and Anubis warriors. I'd totally forgotten about the opening, in fact my memory is still pretty hazy on it.

They can show it as often as they like. I'm just saying it's not in and of itself jaw-dropping any more, and I definitely felt that the battle scenes in Troy lacked because of anything ELSE being provided.

Ah, I see what you were getting at. For me the whole movie was about the buildup of the individual character showdowns, and in that I felt it paid off. The mass battle sequences I'd call "passably cool", but far, far below exquisite combination of drama, visual splendor, and dynamic cinematography of the ROTK Pellenor Fields sequences. But if every movie had to be ROTK, that means no more appreciating Braveheart, Gladiator, and so on. I recognized that Troy wasn't a grand slam by Wolfgang Peterson, and while I can see how it'd be amusing to look down at it in light of ROTK, I can still enjoy it for what it was.

If you haven't got powerful story-telling, give me new fireworks.

Hear hear.

 

[barsoomcore]

I have to say I find something slightly... sinister in the whole "Well, it wasn't very good but I'm not going to complain because I had low expectations," approach to art. It smacks of accepting mediocrity.

I appreciated Troy for its good qualities. It certainly possessed some. That's why I gave it a 5. That doesn't mean I won't call it down for its flaws. It deserves to be called down for its flaws, like all movies do. Statements like "I can still enjoy it for what it was" don't seem to carry much meaning, and veer dangerously close to, "I'm not going to think that hard about it."

Saying that a movie wasn't as good as RotK isn't the same as saying it possesses no redeeming qualities. Saying that a film isn't perfect isn't the same as saying it's worthless. And saying, "Well, it wasn't perfect but I enjoyed it for what it was," feels like dismissing the value of discussing its flaws.

I mean, if people don't want to discuss art to that degree, that's cool. If you just don't want to think that hard about it, I can't complain. I know that the truth has always and will always be that most people aren't that interested. I'm still determined to fight for critical analysis and defensible arguments. For tough criticisms and trenchant observations (I'm not 100% sure what "trenchant" means, but I've always wanted to use it). For the little people. The big people. The cats. The blue-footed boobies.

What was I talking about? Oh, never mind. I take movies pretty seriously. You probably figured that out, though, right?

 

[Dimwhit]

What was I talking about? Oh, never mind. I take movies pretty seriously. You probably figured that out, though, right?

Well, and that's kind of the key there, isn't it? Most of the time, I just want a good, entertaining movie. I don't take it that seriously, and I'm easily entertained. I really enjoyed Van Helsing and Troy. They were both excellent. I don't even agree with many of the complaints/gripes people have against those movies, much less care. And I don't see it as accepting mediocrity. Just enjoying an entertaining movie.

But I do see, and respect, your point.

 

[Berandor]

So, you're casting "the most beautiful woman in the world." Do you choose someone who is stunning to maybe a third of the population, bland to a third, and very unattractive to a third? Or do you choose someone who maybe 80% will say is very attractive, though they stop short of being flattened by her?

You would probably choose one that represented Helen, type-wise. I would have gladly accepted someone with a more mediterranean look, someone less bland, no matter whether I found her attractive, personally.

And I haven't noticed how much I agree with barsoomcore before his little speech. Good words!

 

[Viking Bastard]

Troy gets a heartfelt 'Meh!' from me.

It was the best of films, it was the worst of films.

Excluding Brad Pitt (surprisingly!) this movie was held together by the great actors.
Every actor gave a better performance than the last, that is, except for Mr. Tyler
Durden. Even Orlando Bloom, after the blandness of his performance in PotC, gave
us a stellar Paris. Brian Cox gave us a man you love to hate, yet with surprising
depth, Peter O'Toole gave us more with a sad look in his eyes than with 100 lines
of dialogue and Eric Bana... well, I knew he was good, but *this* good?!? Whoah.
Every scene with Hector pulled at my heartstrings.

As for Brad Pitt. He looked like Achilles (although I had imagined him a tad bit more
buff, but nevermind), but he was no Achilles. Brad Pitt has an problem with these kinda
'Oscar Part Roles'. He's terrific in the non-mainstream indie films and less serious work,
where he cuts loose, but when ever he takes on Potentional-Oscar-Winning-Roles(tm) he
screws it up. He tries to pull a Shakespear. He's not an Shakespearian actor, it doesn't
fit him. Stop trying! Be yourself! You're great!

Now, as for the rest of movie, it's pretty poor. It's much too long and the pace is way off.
Despite the great work of the actors, the film feels mostly void and emotionless. It's dull.
Actually, after the death of Achilles's nephew the film finally seems to come to life, with
the magnificent Achilles/Hector fight and the aftermath of that, but it doesn't last as the
climax and ending feels like a total cop out.

I said it as well after The Perfect Storm, Wolfgang Petersen, Hollywood doesn't suit you.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

You would probably choose one that represented Helen, type-wise. I would have gladly accepted someone with a more mediterranean look, someone less bland, no matter whether I found her attractive, personally.

Why should she have the only mediterranean look in the movie?

For a film about a war in Asia Minor with primarily Greek characters, the cast was pretty Anglo.

Oh, yeah. Hollywood. Go figure.

 

[Agemegos]

Why should she have the only mediterranean look in the movie?

For a film about a war in Asia Minor with primarily Greek characters, the cast was pretty Anglo.

Look a some classical and Helenistic Greek statues some day. Those models didn't have modern Mediterranean looks. Read in the Iliad about 'golden-haired Achilles' and 'red-haired Menelaus'.

There have been some population movements since 300 BC.

 

[Wombat]

Personally, I miss having the gods

It's a pretty good action/war film, but never feels totally like either Greek mythology or history.

I give it about a 6.5, lean to 6 in case of error.

 

[The Goblin King]

Penny Arcade sums up my feelings on the matter.