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.

Unlike the epic TROY, which spent much time and money recreating the spectacle of the Trojan War with CGI, the emphasis here is on the political ambitions and prophecies leading up to the start of the siege of Troy. Rufus Sewell as Agamemnon gives a performance (as the man who would conquer Troy) which eerily evokes Oliver Reed at his sinister best, as he makes it clear that the romance of Helen and Paris was merely a convenient excuse for the events that followed, and that the war came out of his own thirst for conquest. Sienna Guillory is attractive as Helen, but her role is rapidly reduced to that of a bystander in the great events that swirled around her. And the film makes clear its logic about this: how could a woman be responsible for a war in a time when even princesses were chattels of the royal houses to be auctioned off in marriage for political gain? As it deals more intimately with its characters and looks more closely at social power structures and gender roles of the period, this film is much more interesting as a human drama than the rather empty spectacle TROY.

Having seen both this movie and "Troy," I much preferred this one. It is closer to the Iliad and more probable historically. I know that "Byzantium" is anachronistic, but I imagine it was easier than trying to explain to the punters who the Hittites were.There were a few creaky plot devices (the churlish way in which Achilles kills Hector, for example), but at least it accords with the Greek legends better than "Troy" - the sacrifice of Iphigeneia isn't sidestepped; Agamemon is murdered in revenge for this, rather than for any thing else the swine does; Menelaus and Helen actually survive, as we learn from the Odyssey.On the other hand, "Troy" makes a better fist of the Battle for the Ships, and Achilles' boiling anger over the death of Patroclus. Both film treat this with kid gloves, because of the homosexual element (If I remember, Patroclus doesn't even appear in "Helen"), but the Iliad's first word is "wrath," making it clear that this is an essential element of the story.Finally, even though both movies tend to be anachronistic on armour, that in "Troy" was, if I remember, a bit more accurate, at least for everyone else but Achilles. Oh, and why do the producers assume that the Minoan style of column (supporting the roof) was general everywhere?

The film "Helen of Troy" is based on the fictional epic novel, "The Iliad", which has been viewed by many to be the greatest war story ever told. It begins with Paris, a young Trojan Prince who was visited by three goddesses asking him to decide on who of them was the fairest. He chose Aphrodite, the goddess of Love and Beauty, when she offered to make the most beautiful woman in the Aegean fall in love with him. She showed him Helen, and from then on, Paris and Helen were destined to meet. Some time later, the Prince was sent by his father, King Priam of Troy, to make peace with the Greeks. Helen was married to King Menelaus of Sparta then, but that didn't stop her from sailing away with the man she truly loved. That started the war between the Trojans and the Greeks, and it lasted even longer because of the men's selfish pride. Agamemnon, Menelaus' older brother, was High Chief of the Greeks and also the most ruthless. In the end, his wife Clytemnestra killed him for causing her sister, Helen, so much pain.I really enjoyed the movie and I found the scenes highly interesting. But even then, once compared to the modern film "TROY", it does not excel much in the battle scenes. For me this is understandable considering the low efficiency of productions during that time as opposed to the outstanding technology we have now. The acting was also commendable, but still also with less emotion than of the actors in "TROY". I think that over-all, the film was good and it covered all the details that were necessary to maintain the quality of the book. Out of a rating of 5 to 1, 1 being the highest, I would give "Helen of Troy" a 2. This is not only because of the great entertainment and information it provided me but also because that's the rating it deserves.