This three-hour film tells the famous story of the Trojan War fairly well between the Greeks and the Trojans. It is one of the oldest stories of mankind, already in the classical Greek texts, but has been the target of a series of bad adaptations for the cinema. "Troy" (2004) is perhaps one of the worst, focusing on muscle and testosterone (paving the way for "300", a disaster, a few years later). Here the focus is the romance between Paris and Helena, two lovers destined to suffer and to drag an entire people with them. Of course the purists will consider it another mistake, but I find this prospect happier and more satisfying than another, full of steroids and sebum to make the muscles bright. I also liked the film to have space for characters that usually end up overshadowed in other adaptations, but given the length of the film this was almost imperative (even considering the split in two episodes, thought to be on television). From the point of view of historical rigor I was also satisfied, not being an expert in classical civilizations to evaluate it in the best way. The cast has several strong names, such as Stellan Skarsgård, Daniel Lapaine, Maryam d'Abo, John Rhys-Davies and Rufus Sewell. Most actors performed their duty very well and toasted the audience with good performances. CGI and special effects are good enough to fulfill their role.

I liked the movie. It gives a good review of the events that led to the Trojan war. Questions regarding the exact nature of Helen are still debated in scholarly circles. Was she manipulator of people and events, or a victim of events? Did she run off willingly with Paris/Alexander or was she abducted? Was she a flake or was she some sort of über-woman? Sienna Guilory plays to all of these questions. At one moment a waif and when needed--über-woman; at one moment a victim, at another a perpetrator. The role is not as easy to play as one might think.But what if someone like Elizabeth Hurley was cast as Helen? Someone with body size to go with the indomitable and chameleon spirit of Helen? Would there be a different sense to the movie and to Helen as a theatrical role? Complaints about fidelity to the ancient text are duly noted; like reading the Cliff notes, a movie ain't the best way to crib for tomorrow's exam on the Iliad. Helen of Troy. Her story is one that grew over the years and with every accretion changed. In 'Agamemnon', Aeschylus doesn't even want to mention her name, she is a betrayer of Greece. Euripides' "Helen" might be regarded as the first bastardized story-line of the original from the Iliad. The Trojan Horse is an incident from the Odyssey and takes very few lines; Vergil's Aeneid discusses the Trojan Horse in any detail. So to think the viewer is watching an interpretation of Homer's Iliad, better re-read the original.The Greek story can be complicated to follow, especially for the modern viewer. I thought they did an admirable job of getting the general idea--even if some of the details were lost in translation.

Reasonably well-made, and quite an entertaining watch --- as long as you don't expect anything more from it! If you watch this movie for reasons other than for entertainment, chances are you'll be disappointed --- it has little to do with the "Iliad" and less to do with the history. It has numerous interpolations which are nowhere to be found in the mythology, but that is the privilege of the authors. With most of these I have no quarrels ---- they streamline the plot and give it a certain connectivity --- but I must protest at the idea that Agamemnon rapes Helen, which seems to me to be a particularly tasteless and unnecessary interpolation. Agamemnon has faults enough, but this is one act he has never ever been accused of. Besides, it is completely out of keeping with his character --- Agamemnon is, above all, an ambitious man, and ambitious men do not go to war over a woman, no matter how beautiful. Agamemnon wants Troy, so that he can control the whole Agaean, and that is why he goes to war; Helen is an excuse, a pretext. I was also disappointed with the characterization of the two great heroes, Achilles and Hector; the one comes across as a suicidal madman, the other as an arrogant wimp. However, the rest of the cast is quite acceptable, Cassandra is played very well, and Agamemnon superbly --- the film may be called "Helen of Troy", but Agamemnon is the real star of the show. Watch it when you have time, it's fun enough.

I love this movie/miniseries because of how beautifully accurate all the physical props and scenery are. It is incredibly accurate, especially when compared to the movie "Troy," which got a lot of it wrong. The armor, the buildings, the varied ethnicities of the extras... it's like my archaeology and art books have come to life on screen. Also, it's a nice summary of many myths from sources other than Homer, not just the Iliad. If you really want to get to know the Iliad, read it. In "Troy," the armor was not accurate, and neither were the women's costumes. There were plenty of anachronisms within the Greek attire, and it's frustrating for someone who studies this stuff. Also, they made the sets way too big, in an attempt to appear "epic" as they say in that DVD's extras. This movie, although sometimes cheesy and campy, at least is pretty much true to the age of Troy and Mycenae. It's a bit like watching a documentary for a student of Greek archaeology. Plus it really gives the viewer a taste of the rugged landscape of Greece. As a side note, as a natural blonde myself, I love that Helen is fair-haired (blondes were a commodity in ancient Greece. very rare to find one).