I just saw this for the first time on TCM. It was in their OnDemand section. I could not believe that I had never seen or heard of this film before.
Here is he IMDB link
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049301/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
At first I thought this must be some low budget B film. But it looked like it was a very big budget film, something on the scale of Ben Hur or Cleopatra. Although the story was more true to Homer then the Brad Pitt "Troy", I could not get as comfortable with this film.
It was funny seeing Stanley Baker as Achilles. He seemed to be always scowling. Some of the battle scenes were really HUGE. Worth seeing for that anyway. But the characters and script just were not compelling. It felt like they were just going from one scene to another because that is where the story obligated them to go.
The initial setup is very long, due to this being told from the point of view of Paris. So there is a lot of time spent before he gets Helen out of Sparta. I can see now why "Troy" was told from another point of view. I like "Troy" a lot. After watching this '56 version though I did not fell like I would want to see if again. It felt like it dragged on for so long, I thought it was going to end before they got to the Trojan Horse. But they made it all the way.
I think the main problem I had with the film were the actor playing Paris and the actress playing Helen. They were both physically attractive but I had never seen or heard of them before. And they just didn't seem like they fit the part. Overall they made the film seem very dull. I kept waiting for the breakout moment, but never felt that way.
This could have been a really outstanding film, maybe a classic. But it just missed the mark. Thinking back, I would have to say Stanley Baker was the most miscast of all perhaps. Don't want to offend anyone if this is one of their favorite films. Maybe if I saw it at a younger age, it would have let more of an favorable impression.
Walt
Here is he IMDB link
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049301/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
At first I thought this must be some low budget B film. But it looked like it was a very big budget film, something on the scale of Ben Hur or Cleopatra. Although the story was more true to Homer then the Brad Pitt "Troy", I could not get as comfortable with this film.
It was funny seeing Stanley Baker as Achilles. He seemed to be always scowling. Some of the battle scenes were really HUGE. Worth seeing for that anyway. But the characters and script just were not compelling. It felt like they were just going from one scene to another because that is where the story obligated them to go.
The initial setup is very long, due to this being told from the point of view of Paris. So there is a lot of time spent before he gets Helen out of Sparta. I can see now why "Troy" was told from another point of view. I like "Troy" a lot. After watching this '56 version though I did not fell like I would want to see if again. It felt like it dragged on for so long, I thought it was going to end before they got to the Trojan Horse. But they made it all the way.
I think the main problem I had with the film were the actor playing Paris and the actress playing Helen. They were both physically attractive but I had never seen or heard of them before. And they just didn't seem like they fit the part. Overall they made the film seem very dull. I kept waiting for the breakout moment, but never felt that way.
This could have been a really outstanding film, maybe a classic. But it just missed the mark. Thinking back, I would have to say Stanley Baker was the most miscast of all perhaps. Don't want to offend anyone if this is one of their favorite films. Maybe if I saw it at a younger age, it would have let more of an favorable impression.
Walt