Not bad, but why didn't they name it "Achilles"?

Rating: 7/10 (5 July 2007)

I watched this movie when it came to the cinemas in Germany and once again in television some weeks ago. Though I liked it in a way, because I'm fond of the optical experience of this kind of movies, there were some disappointing elements.
But first, I want to mention something positive: I was impressed by the demonstration of how Achilles' fighting works to make him nearly invincible. It was an extraordinarily good idea to explain his power in war by his acting and reacting faster than others and employing a better and more precise method. But I don't think - like at least one of the former reviewers - the idea is correct that Greeks at that time did believe in the existence and power of their gods as little as we do. This may fit in our contemporary world view, but I think it would be a much better interpretation of the time and place depicted if one had introduced serious doubts about why the god protecting Troy, Apollo, didn't help his town. On the other hand, they depicted Agamemnon and his real aims in waging war against Troy in a very convincing way and the choice of actors for Agamemnon and Menelaos - who are brothers - was definitely fitting. Furthermore, the scene depicting Priamos who comes to Achilles to get the body of his dead son back is as near to the story of the Iliad as it is impressing.
Yet, I was a bit disappointed by the following points: I didn't understand the reason, why they made it appear as if Priamos, the king of Troy, who is famous to have had about fifty sons and a number of daughters, only had two sons, Hector and Paris. Surely, the others are less important, but it would have been sufficient to place a number of people hanging around - they employed enough people in other scenes - and to mention that there are more than two sons. I also don't know why it was necessary to put an end to this famous ten-year-lasting war this quickly - just to save some aging make-up? Finally, the thing most annoying to me all over the film was the overemphasized stress on Achilles (though I can imagine this has to do with Hollywood art styling Brad Pitt as THE hero of the film). Achilles may have been one of the best heroes of the Greeks fighting in the war against Troy, but he definitely was not the only one nor did he in any way participate in the capture of the city (for he was dead by then). There could also have been made more out of the problematic character of Achilles, who surely is acting in an extremely bad manner when treating Hectors dead body as he does. Anyway, there was a much greater number of interesting personalities and heroes in the original story (e.g. Ajax 1 and 2, Ulysses, Diomedes, Nestor) who are not shown in a way illustrating their importance (perhaps to the exception of Ulysses). The Iliad is surely not at all a story mainly concerned with Achilles and Hector. It should be stated, at least, that although Achilles had killed Hector before, Troy perhaps would not have been conquered for some more years if there hadn't been the trick of Ulysses which made its way into common language (even of todays PC world). In omitting the element of the gods, however, there is also lost a whole dimension of the story - and the one most appropriate for introducing a comic element, by the way.
So, on the whole, it's not a bad film and surely good entertainment, but they could have done more in doing into a movie a story of the potential the Iliad is offering.