Good as an alternate-universe version of Homer's Iliad!

Rating: 6/10 (12 October 2005)

As a Greek-American who has known the stories of the Iliad and the Odyssey since my childhood, I found the changes and omissions in the film annoying if not downright irritating. The production values of the movie were great, and I didn't particularly notice any of the continuity errors mentioned---well, I really don't view movies to find out who goofed or what goof was made.
It was hard to enjoy the movie altogether when Menelaus was killed off before the first big battle and then Agamemnon was killed during the sack of Troy. It was rather irritating to see Paris survive and escape. It was annoying to have Aeneas, the eventual founder of Rome, be presented as a kid whom Paris just meets during that escape scene. The absence of Cassandra was something else that was hard to deal with. Reducing the war to something that lasted a few weeks instead of ten years was yet another irritant.
I was also upset by the fact that Menelaus and Agamemnon were presented as a couple of huge, brutish men while most of the Trojans were slim and trim. Thank God the filmmakers didn't present Odysseus as another nearly ugly brute! I didn't mind that the Olympian gods were not included as actual participants in the war and only referred to by the characters. As for Achilles, I think he came across as way too arrogant, although his seeking glory was not in itself inaccurate.
I'd really like to know the specific reasons for those detail changes because as far as I'm concerned they did nothing to improve the drama of the story. Suffering from depression as I am, I can't recall the names of the screenplay writers and the director and producers. I nevertheless think--feel--that the changes in detail did nothing to improve the story--unless it was sheer laziness to have to deal with Menelaus and Agamemnon living and Cassandra warning and being unheeded about the disaster to come. Geez, would the movie have been too long if, say, another ten minutes of story were included?
To enjoy this movie, one has to be able to see it without knowing the story as given to us by Homer. That's why I said that it has to be viewed as something out of an alternate universe. I think for those who have neither read Homer's epics nor know anything about the story, the enjoyment of the movie was more available. For those of us who do know it, it's hard to dismiss what we do know. Still, with a major mental effort to set aside Homer, I must say it ain't a terrible movie. It's good. I agree with many of the observations about the performances. I have to get Homer out of my mind to say that it was a pretty darn good movie. But I still feel that it would have been a better one if those detail changes had not been made because I don't think the reasoning behind those decisions was based on any truly dramatic aesthetics or creativity. Of course, I don't know what the exact reasons were--I just suspect they weren't good.
By the way, are any of you aware that it is the Odyssey and not the Iliad that is considered the better story and is also viewed as the first true novel, even if it is created as epic poetry? Think of the differences of the themes. Think of the differences between Achilles and Odysseus. Think... .