My, my, my...aren't we a bit prickly about this film?

Rating: 6/10 (10 January 2005)

And I thought that the people writing about Halle Berry's "Catwoman" were defensive.
It seems to me that we have several camps of critics reviewing this film. Mr. Ebert represents this film as an insult to Homer and a bastardization of a legendary piece of literature. Others complain about the screen time that Brad Pitt has as Achilles. Let's just address these two issues for now.
First, let's admit that Homer's work is based on legend and that most legends have at least SOME basis in fact. I think that Petersen does a pretty good job of filming a story that may have been the basis for the legends: The siege of Troy lasts several weeks, but is soon exaggerated to 10 years. Achilles is the greatest warrior, but is mortal like everyone else and dies in a manner that gives birth to legends about his parentage. The war itself is built on the pretext that Agamemnon is upholding Greek honor after Helen is stolen, while actually providing the excuse he needs to expand his kingdom. What's wrong with that? At least Petersen isn't depicting blue-painted Pict women fighting alongside the men.
Second, Achilles IS a major character. He was a major character in Homer's poem and is a major character of Greek mythology. But I really don't think that he gets that much more screen time than do Hector and Paris. He's egotistical, a braggart, and a vicious fighter, all qualities I would expect in a famous warrior. Virtually all films "based on events" must focus on one or two individuals. Otherwise, you end up with "The Longest Day," where all the characters enter and leave in just a few minutes.
Now, I do have some criticisms. Whereas Petersen tries hard to stay realistic about in portraying the basis for the legend, I think he makes a mistake in depicting "a thousand" Greek ships. After all, just beaching the ships with minimum spacing between them would take over 4 miles of beach.
I give this film *** out of *****.