Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

clanciai Surprisingly good, many factors adding to an excellent Cinemascope version of the Trojan war, above all the script, which is clear and consistently relevant and sticking to the subject; and although very far from Homer, this variation of the intrigue is impressively intelligent and definitely logical. The first half of the film deals with the Spartan argument, (Homer's epic doesn't start until 75 minutes into the film,) Achilles (Stanley Baker) making an impressing entry, with Brigitte Bardot as Helen's slave girl who is given for the night to Paris by Menelaos but instead helps him escape - she is only 22 but striking - you recognize her figure before you see her face. Niall McGinnis is very convincing as the jealous Menelaos whose jealousy Helen finds it necessary to escape, while most surprising of all is the convincing excellence of Paris especially but also Helen. Jacques Sernas (totally unknown to me) is the perfect Paris, a beautiful young man of great charm, sympathetic intelligence and audacious insolence, and Rossana Podestà (also unknown to me) is a very credible Helena, masking her real identity to get away with Paris from Menelaos.Among the Trojans, Cedric Hardwicke makes a very plausible Priam, he is given the most famous quote of the Trojan war, taking Helen round her chin: "So this is the face that launched a thousand ships," (Christopher Marlowe), and also Nora Swinburne as Hecuba, Ronald Lewis as Aeneas and Janette Scott as Cassandra, a Trojan parallel to Brigitte Bardot. Only Hector is not quite convincing, Harry Andrews being the wrong type, (Eric Bana is the better compensation in the 2004 Wolfgang Peterson version), and all the battle scenes are dramatically violent and bloody enough.The action is swift and never dull, the dialogue is comfortably fluent all the way, the story is well but not exaggeratedly sugared with romanticism, and to all this comes Max Steiner's glorious music, culminating in the orgy of the wooden horse.Of course, you have to make a comparison with the 2004 "Troy" version. None is better than the other. Both have their great credits and very few lacks. The 2004 is technically more excellent, while Robert Wise's contribution (in the shadow of Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments" of the same year) is more realistic and human.The Trojan adventure is such a great story that it's impossible to make a mess of it. As far as I know, no one has ever been unsuccessful in dealing with it - the characters are too individually outstanding, all of them, not to naturally add to a great show. But of all the film versions, I think Robert Wise, with his concise and clever editing of the story, with its flamboyantly efficient story-telling (it's less than 2 hours,) and exciting virtuosity constituting an excellent epic for all time, has made the best of it.

dougdoepke They're sure a couple of pretty people even if they lack the force to fill out a florid spectacle. As the star-crossed lovers, Paris and Helen, Sernas and Podesta drive a plot that eventually involves a cast of thousands and all the eastern Mediterranean. As a kid, I was impressed by the movie and still am-- well, not so much by the long-winded lead up to the spectacular battle scenes. The dialog still sounds clunky. I don't know why Hollywood thought the ancients spoke such literary English. I guess they didn't want the actors to sound like they just got off the train from Denver.On the other hand, the many massed scenes of warring Trojans and Spartans still impress. It's a Warner Bros. production produced in Italy with a mainly British cast, and half of Italy hired as extras. How the heck, I wonder, can you manage so many people speaking different languages for the big scenes. But I note the great Yakima Canutt of 30's Westerns fame and Sergio Leone of spaghetti Westerns were second unit directors, meaning they handled the battle scenes. Great job. Also, I really like those sinister shots of the Trojan horse that I still think of when I hear the phrase 'Trojan horse'.Then too, it's informative to know it's not just biblical people who get punished for drunken orgies, like in all those Hollywood biblical epics. Now we know that heathens too, like the Greeks and Trojans, pay a big price for having all that fun. Nothing is surer of impending disaster in these movies than drunken orgies. Anyway, this was one of those big splashy films aimed at getting people away from their new-fangled TV's. It sure did me and I'm still glad.

Spikeopath Now over fifty years old, this almost epic film pales in comparison to other more notable sword and sandal movies. The scale of the film cannot be faulted, hundreds of extras & huge lavish sets are evident, while the piece is given a well regarded director in Robert Wise to chart its course.However, the problems with it are many. First off is that the film is terribly pedestrian for the first hour, a tepid script fails to engage and at times is unintentionally funny. Then there are major cast issues. Taking the leads of Paris & Helen are Jacques Sernas & Rossana Podestà respectively. They look the part, both of them undeniably pretty, but neither of them can act for toffee. Filmed in Rome, Italy, it begs the question on if the casting director walked around Lazio and picked the two blondest people available for the roles! In support of the Blondie's are a host of usually fine performers, Cedric Hardwicke, Stanley Baker, Niall MacGinnis, Harry Andrews, Torin Thatcher & Robert Douglas. A mixture of actors either too old for their roles, poorly written, or in the case of Douglas, an underused important character (Agamemnon).Shifting away from the awful back projection work, the action sequences fair much better. There's enough here in the second hour to please the sword & sandal fan. But if it's enough to make this a safe recommendation to the potential first time crowd? Well I wouldn't stake my life on it you know! It's a genre I personally love, so I wondered why I hadn't heard about it long before now? After viewing it it became evident why, it's just not any good. A generous 4/10 from me for the siege of Troy action construction, the stunt work throughout and for Baker's moody show as Achilles.

dbdumonteil This is an impersonal movie,coming from someone as talented as Robert Wise ,who seems less comfortable in the sword and sandal genre than he is in the musicals ("West Side Story" ),the fantasy and horror movies ("The haunting" 1963!)or mainly the film noir ("odd against tomorrow" "I want To live" "the set up").He is not helped by an heterogeneous cast including Italian Rossana Podesta (Wise found her in Fernandez's "La Red"(1954) in which she played half-naked most of the time:so the part was tailor made for her),French Jacques Sernas (and a brunette Brigitte Bardot in the priceless part of a devoted slave),English Stanley Baker as Achilles ,as tradition as it,as far co-productions are concerned.That said,Wise's Troy is certainly smarter than the 2003 version which had Achilles die during the storming of the city,just because star Brad Pit needed a longer part.The judgment of Pâris,which was passed over in the modern version,is also absent ,but the screenwriters found an interesting counterpart with the statues of the goddesses.Generally the Spartians look nasty,sinister-looking whereas the Troyans are good-looking,loyal,brave and virtuous.Best performance,IMHO,comes from Janette Scott as Cassandra who plays her game well in an underwritten part.Lavish film sets , good battles scenes and a story closer to Homer than the 2003 version .