Goldeneye

Goldeneye

"Bond is back!"  So proclaimed headlines across the country when Goldeneye was released in 1995. It had been 6 years since the last film of the franchise, License to Kill, had flamed out at the box office.  The following years were tortuous for Bond fans, as production on the next sequel was stalled because of legal woes with the studio, MGM. The franchise was hurt still more with the departures of Bond director John Glen and actor Timothy Dalton, and the deaths of Bond stalwarts, scriptwriter Richard Maibaum and title artist Maurice Binder.  But the worst blow of all came with the illness of producer Albert "Cubby" Broccoli, the patriarch of the franchise who had guided the films since the beginning.  It was beginning to look like Bond, the father of the modern action hero, was going to be gone for good.

Eventually, MGM's legal woes were dealt with and Broccoli's Eon Productions was able to get back into the business of making movies. And it was time for a complete makeover.  Cubby Broccoli was too sick to serve as anything other than a consulting producer, but he left the franchise in the capable hands of his daughter Barbara and stepson, Michael Wilson. There must have been a lot of doubt in the months leading up to production.  Would Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson be able to recreate the magic?  Did it even matter? Maybe nobody cared about Bond anymore.  The character only really seemed relevant during the Cold War.  He was now a man out of his time, a secret knight of a British Empire that no longer existed.  As an action hero, he had been eclipsed by the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis.  What there a point to resurrecting the franchise?

The answer is a resounding yes.  With determination and perseverance, Broccoli and Wilson showed that Bond wasn't only still relevant, but still deserved to be in the upper echelon of badasses. Maybe Ian Fleming's Bond wasn't relevant in the new post-Glastnost world, but Eon Productions' Bond sure as hell would be.  I think part of the reason Goldeneye is so successful is because it tackles this lack of relevance head-on. In the film, Bond is called a dinosaur - both because of his old school sexist attitudes and because he might not have a relevant place in the new world order.  The former is a pretty brilliant move because it allows Bond to be Bond while having the rest of the world either look down on him (like the new M) or amusingly roll their eyes at his antics (like the new Moneypenny). And the latter - the idea of trying to find one's place in the post-Cold War world - becomes a major theme in the film for multiple characters.

There is a lot to admire about Goldeneye, but let's start with the crew.  Director Martin Campbell was a solid director who had already proved he could handle both action (No Escape) and tense thrillers (the original Edge of Darkness).  The script, by Jeffrey Caine (Oscar-nominated for The Constant Gardener) and Bruce Feirstein (Tomorrow Never Dies) was witty, exciting and genuinely original for a franchise that had been around for three decades by that point. And I have to give major credit to Broccoli and Wilson for one major crew change - a MAJOR upgrade in the overall casting.

Let's be honest, Bond films were not known for their acting. Of course, it was important to cast Bond and his main villain well, and occasionally, the Bond girl (though for every Diana Rigg, there is a Tanya Roberts).  But generally, this was not a franchise for thespians. And then Goldeneye brings on Pierce Brosnan, Judi Dench, Sean Bean, Robbie Coltrane, Tchéky Karyo, Joe Don Baker, Famke Janssen, Izabella Scorupso and an amusing blink and you'll miss it cameo from Minnie Driver.  That's a major cast upgrade and they all come to play. There is not a weak link in this group!

But I ramble.  Let's move into story, shall we?   There might be some spoilers here so be warned! After a top secret stealth helicopter goes missing and a Russian research center is inexplicably destroyed, Bond moves in to investigate, only to find himself facing one of his oldest friends, a long thought dead agent named Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean).  Trevelyan has access to a nuclear satellite called Goldeneye and Bond has to stop him before he uses the satellite's power to destroy London. The story is entertaining throughout, and includes some great classic Bond moments, like a world record-breaking bungie jump, a thrilling tank chase through St. Petersburg, and a memorable romp in a sauna.

Let's focus on that sauna scene for a second, where Bond is seduced/attacked by the evil Bond girl, Xenia Onatopp, played with vibrant gusto by Famke Janssen.  This scene shows the Bond character at his best - he is charming, sexy, funny, ruthless and probably a little too over confident.  And what a great fight with Onatopp, a powerful woman who gets off on killing people (literally). Her preferred method of assassinating people is by straddling them with her thighs and squeezing them to death, a process she enjoys...er, maybe a little too much.  She is hands down one of the best Bond girls of the entire series, and she is just as sexy and ruthless as Bond, and absolutely bat shit crazy (even to the other villains).  She is matched with a great performance by her villainous boss, played by Sean Bean.  For one of the few times in the series, we are blessed with a villain who is definitely Bond's equal.

Which leads me to some of my criticisms of the film, which also has to start with the villains.  At this point, the franchise no longer had the rights to the Blofeld character (as detailed on in my For Your Eyes Only review).  So Bond needed a new arch-nemesis to pester him film after film.  And here, we have a golden opportunity to achieve that with an interesting character who can actually give Bond a run for his money, a former spy with a fascinating back story and a believable grudge against England, and played by an exciting actor, Sean Bean, who can hold his own on-screen against the charismatic Brosnan. And instead of using this character to fill the gap left by Blofeld's absence, they kill him off at the end of the film (and in an incredibly lame way, by the way).  Maybe this isn't so much of a flaw as it is a missed opportunity, but it continues to frustrate me every time I see the film.

Other problems with the film could also be considered pet peeves. As a fan of the crazy stunts in the Bond films, I loathe the scene where Bond jumps off a cliff after a plunging airplane, somehow falling faster than the plane, catching up to it, climbing in, running to the cockpit and then taking control of the plan to fly away and escape. Hell no.  That's just too much.  Even if the Bond stunts were sometimes hard to believe, you still had stunt teams figuring this stuff out.  It was real people doing real crazy stuff. We get a taste of the stunt team's expertise with the record-setting bungie jump in the movie's opening scene, but then we go off the rails into special effects land with the cliff dive. In this scene, the production team just went the easy route and used special effects to create an utterly unbelievable moment...something so ridiculous that it took me out of the movie...and these are the types of shenanigans that would only grow worse and worse throughout Brosnan's tenure, eventually leading to the invisible car and tsunami surfing in Die Another Day. That pain begins here, with the stupid cliff jump, folks!

So the film isn't perfect (I didn't even get into the atrocious score by Eric Serra!), but does it matter? Goldeneye overall is a really good film, and a terrific inaugural outing for Brosnan and Campbell.  Bond was back, and he was better than ever.  There was hope for the future!

RANKINGS:

This one is tough. I really admire Goldeneye, but I'm not sure I would put it in the upper echelon.  I think it will fit nicely in with Dalton's debut, The Living Daylights.  In some ways, The Living Daylights is better - it's plot is more intriguing and the fights are better.  But I think I have to give the edge to Goldeneye.  The big differences are the cast (especially Brosnan and Janssen) and because I admire how the film cleverly updates Bond and makes him relevant in the post-Cold War world. Most importantly, this is the film that saved the franchise.  And it deserves some major points for that!

So here are the updated rankings:

1. Thunderball
2. From Russia with Love
3. Goldfinger
4. The Spy Who Loved Me
5. Goldeneye
6. The Living Daylights
7. Dr. No
8. Octopussy
9. For Your Eyes Only
10. Live and Let Die
11. License to Kill
12. Man with the Golden Gun
13. Diamonds are Forever
14. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
15. Moonraker
16. You Only Live Twice
17. A View to a Kill

MVP:
We really haven't talked about the biggest change in the franchise - that there was a new Bond in the lead here.  So let's get into it, because Brosnan is the clear MVP, but had as much to do with revitalizing the franchise as anybody else.  He was young, fresh faced, and energetic.  And most importantly, he seemed to effectively embody all the different aspects of Bond's persona.  For the first time since Connery, we had someone who was utterly believable flirting and fighting, someone who could be intense when the occasion called for it, and then flip on a dime and throw out a joke immediately after.  He is definitely different from Sean Connery - I can imagine Brosnan as an upper class, prep school kid with oodles of charm and confidence who then joined the Secret Service and learned to fight.  He started with the polish and then learned to be gritty from there as he needed to.  I kind of have the opposite impression with Connery - who I imagine as rough and tumble neighborhood badass who learned how to be charming and elegant. But both of them are unique as Bonds in that they really have all the check boxes filled.  Would Brosnan ever be as good as Connery? Doubtful - Connery was the first and will always be the best.  But what Goldeneye showed us is that Brosnan had that potential.  He is terrific in this movie, and gets the easy MVP.


BEST LINE:

Bond: No, no, no.  No more foreplay.

TRIVIA:
Casting Bond has to be one of the most difficult jobs in Hollywood.  With the world's most iconic action hero, the amount of scrutiny and publicity that you have to deal with is massive.  Everyone has an opinion.  And one of the miracles of the Bond series is that for the most part, they've done a great job of casting the part. As far as I am concerned, there has only been one misfire, George Lazenby, though a lot of people even disagree with me on that.  Cubby Broccoli had his eye on Pierce Brosnan for a long time.  In the 1980s, Brosnan was the star of a hit show called Remington Steele, in which he played a thief who was very Bond-like.  It looked like the show was about to be canceled, and Brosnan would be available to play the role.  He was thrilled.  Bond was his dream role; it was the part he was hoping his career would lead to.  Meetings with Broccoli went well, the media was buzzing, and it looked like he was about to get the part. And then the network, probably trying to cash in on all the media attention, renewed Remington Steele, forcing Brosnan to return to the show. Brosnan lost the part, and the mantle was taken up by Timothy Dalton (though the quest to hire Dalton is also an interesting story as I wrote here!). Brosnan was distraught, but fate (and Bond) were not done with him!

I also have an Honorable Mention bit of trivia.  Remember that amazing sauna fight I mentioned? Well, the fighting/making out got so intense that Famke Janssen broke a rib!  The moment is when Brosnan slams Xenia into the marble wall.  Janssen told him to really go for it, especially since they thought the walls were padded. Despite the pain, she kept going with the scene like nothing had happened, and that is the shot we see in the film!

Ronin

Ronin 

There is no denying the versatility of Robert DeNiro, one of the greatest actors of his generation.  The man can do almost anything, though he is best known for his gritty dramas, gangster films, and more recently, his comedies.  For me, none of these genres feature the DeNiro I prefer.  I actually like action badass DeNiro the best.  I know this is blasphemy in most circles, but I would rather watch DeNiro beat people up in Heat and Midnight Run then watch him go through the emotional wringers in classics like Raging Bull or Taxi Driver.  And I am not embarrassed to admit that!

And DeNiro is in fine badass form in Ronin, a robust and smart thriller from the late 90s, directed by John Frankenheimer (The Manchurian Candidate) and featuring an amazing cast includes Jean Reno (The Professional), Natasha McElhome (The Truman Show), Sean Bean (Lord of the Rings), Jonathan Pryce (Brazil), and Stellan Skarsgard (Good Will Hunting).

The film is smarter than your average action flick, which is immediately obvious from the title.  Ronins were masterless samurai, who wandered the countryside looking for work or hiring themselves out as mercenaries.  Our heroes in Ronin are in a similar dilemma.  They are all special forces or former intelligence operatives from both sides of the Iron Curtain.  Now that the Cold War is over, they find themselves devoid of any purpose and willing to be hired by the highest bidder.  The bidder in this case is an extreme branch of the IRA, who want to steal an extremely valuable and important briefcase, the contents of which are top secret.

What follows is a wild and crazy jaunt through France, with some terrific gunfights and two AMAZING car chases.  There is a lot of quality in Ronin, starting with the terrific cast.  Everyone carries their weight, with DeNiro providing an especially smart performance that anchors the film.  The script is also excellent, full of tough guy one liners provided by excellent playwright and filmmaker David Mamet.  I also like that the script refuses to dumb itself down for the audience.  Our cast is playing catchup for most of the movie and we are in the fog with them.  The movie is not confusing, but it is definitely complicated and lacking in any kind of exposition, so you definitely need to pay attention.  But again, I think this is all a good thing!

It is a shame that the film starts to fall apart in the last half hour.  It's not that the film becomes bad.  I suppose the problem is that it just runs out of steam.  There is so much momentum building to that second car chase at the 2/3 mark, that everything after it seems kind of blah.  And when your climactic fight is kind of blah, that's a problem.

But this doesn't change the fact that for most of its running time, Ronin is a tough and fantastic thriller, with great writing, expert direction and top notch acting.  I miss this DeNiro.  I wish he would stop making Focker movies and pick up a gun again.


MVP:
As much as I like Robert DeNiro in this movie, he is not the MVP.  The MVP goes to Car Chases.  This may seem silly, but when you see the movie you will understand.  These are two of the most exciting car chases I've seen, the second of which might actually be the best car chase I have ever seen.  I know Bullett is the gold standard of car chases, but DeNiro's run through the back streets of Arles blows it out of the water.  Not even a contest.  So for me, this is an easy one!

BEST LINE:
Spence: You ever kill anybody?
Sam: I hurt somebody's feelings once.

TRIVIA:
David Mamet worked on the film as a script doctor, but actually rewrote huge portions of the story and dialogue.  There was a dispute about who should get what credit, with the WGA ruling that the story and top script credit should go to the original writer, J.D. Zeik.   Mamet then asked for his name to be either removed from the credits or replaced by his pseudonym, Richard Weisz.  I don't have an opinion on this because I don't know how much work Zeik did.  He may have done a lot and deserved his credit, for all I know.  But I do know that the best dialogue sounds like Mamet, and I'm willing to bet that he is responsible for much of the final product.  The final credits do read J.D. Zeik and Richard Weisz.

Black Death

Black Death

Well, it is October again, which means I am returning to the wonderful world of horror films for a few weeks!  First on the list is the recent Black Death, a low budget horror film that came out of England last year.  The film never really found an audience here in the United States, though I am willing to bet that a wide theatrical release with a real marketing campaign would have helped.  It is a pity no studio got behind Black Death, but it is actually really quite good.

In the 1340s, the plague has descended over England, sweeping across the countryside and eventually killing 1/3 to 1/2 of the total population.  But there is one village out in the marshes that is unaffected by the plague.  No one knows why the village has been spared, but there are rumors of witchcraft and devil worship.  A group of religious warriors led by Ulric (Sean Bean, Lord of the Rings) is sent by the local bishop to investigate, guided by a young monk named Osmond (Eddie Redmayne, The Other Boleyn Girl).

First, let's talk about what's good.  I love the look of this movie.  I don't think I have seen the Middles Ages look quite so bleak and real.  Black Death does a fantastic job of depicting the bubonic plague, really showing how desperate and horrifying it was, and how it drove much of the country into paranoia and savagery.  I was impressed with this bleak setting, and would have liked to have seen even more of it.  I also really like the cast, which is uniformly great, and also includes Carice van Houten (Black Book) as Langiva, the leader of the village (and possibly a witch), Tim McInnerny (Black Adder), and a nice cameo from David Warner (Tron).

What I also like about the film is that while it is simple in story structure, there is actually a lot happening under the surface.  Now in the 21st Century, I don't think we can comprehend something as devastating as the Black Death.  Think about this - literally half the people you know dead all within the last year.  How would you react?  What would you think?  How paranoid would you be?  What if you're next?  Would such devastation drive you to religion or away from it?  These are questions that this movie asks by showing us how the warriors and the villagers react to the trying times.  Sometimes we feel like the villagers are right, sometimes we find ourselves agreeing with the warriors.  And this is probably the film's greatest strength, how it is adeptly shifts our sympathies from one side to the other, leaving us unsure of who to trust and who to root for.  It is a cleverly conceived by director Christopher Jones and writer Dario Poloni.

And I will be honest, I always preferred this style of horror film, which is more about atmosphere and the slow build, to the hack and slasher genres that most people watch today.  I would take a good Hammer Film over a Friday 13th movie any day of the week.  Black Death isn't even really scary at all, but it is eerie and unsettling, and probably has more of an impact as a result.

There are a few problems with the film, the biggest of which is an over-reliance on shaky cam.  I am tired of directors thinking that handheld cameras means the film will be more artsy.  Just hold the camera steady so I can see what's happening!!! The shaky cam (or what I call earthquake cam) gets annoying in the first third and then all but ruins the one major battle scene in the movie.  Thankfully, once Ulric and company arrive at the village, the camera work settles down a bit.

I also have some problems with the ending.  The climax bounces from some brilliant moments (most involving the kickass Sean Bean) and some highly questionable moments.  Then we are left with a coda, which while thematically is related, just seems tacked on for no other reason than to depress us.

But overall, this is a rock solid film with some great performances and atmosphere.  You should check it out!

BEST LINE:  
It's all in his delivery, but I like it when Wulfstan explains to the naive Osmond that: "A necromancer...is one who plucks the dead from the cold earth...and breaths new life into them."

MVP:
As much as I like Sean Bean, (and he does deliver the single coolest moment of the movie), I have to give the MVP to John Lynch, who plays the warrior Wulfstan.  Wulfstan was easily my favorite character.  Everyone else in the motley crew of warriors are either greedy, bloodthirsty, way too fanatical or full of wimpy angst. Wulfstan is a fighter, but he is a good man, probably the best man in the movie.  And as the crew traveled through the plague ravaged countryside and the bandit riddled forest, it was his fate that I was most concerned about.  Maybe that is a failing of the movie since I should have been more worried about Osmond and Ulric, but I prefer to view it as a testament to John Lynch's accessible performance.  Plus, he looks a bit like Scott Bakula in battle armor.  And that's kinda cool.

TRIVIA: 
Lena Headey (who also played Sean Bean's nemesis on Game of Thrones) was set to play Langiva, but was replaced by van Houten.

More Musings on Troy

More Musings on Troy

First off - spoiler alert!

So there are a few other items I wanted to discuss from Wolfgang Peterson's Troy from 2004. As I wrote my review earlier, the movie was a disappointment overall. When it worked, it was quite good. Unfortunately, there were just as many moments that did not work, and many of them are major problems.

There have been many criticisms leveled against Troy, some deserved and some not. I would like to defend the movie against some of these unfair criticisms.

1) The Gods are the most important part of The Iliad. Where the heck are the Gods in this movie?

The first misconception is that Troy is even an adaptation of Homer's The Iliad. It isn't. You could never make a movie of The Iliad because it only tells a tiny fraction of the Trojan War, a period of just a few weeks during the vast 10-year long conflict. The war doesn't begin in the Iliad. Troy doesn't fall in the Iliad. There is no Trojan Horse in the Iliad. Achilles is not famously killed with the arrow in the heel in the Iliad. The Iliad is ONLY the story of the events that directly lead to the epic Hector vs. Achilles duel. That's it. So let me clear that up right away.

People argue that without the gods, the whole story of the Trojan War is meaningless. To which I have to ask - why? The gods are important to the myth of the Trojan War, but that is not the story that Troy is trying to tell. Troy is trying to tell a plausible story that over thousands of years could have become the myth. I do agree that the involvement of the gods is important to the myth itself and does provide some wonderful thought-provoking themes about the nature of free will and what it means to be a human being. All very interesting material, but hardly necessary. What is essential to this tale is love - Achilles and Patrocles, Hector and Andromache, and especially that of Helen and Paris, who choose love over politics and bring about the destruction of a civilization because of it. Pride is also an essential theme. Hubris, the blind and haughty pride that has brought down many a hero and villain is on full display in both the myth and the movie. It is Agamemnon's hubris that insults and isolates Achilles so he refuses to fight, it is Troy's hubris that they can never lose a battle that leads to their downfall. That is much more important to the core story.

So why are the gods needed? Someday someone will adapt the myth into a film, and realize its impossible because the scenes in Olympus don't work in a film medium. It would be an hour of debating free will. Interesting to read. Boring to watch. I'd rather watch the war itself, thank you very much.

2) The acting stinks!

Overall, I have to disagree again. Critics singled out Eric Bana, Peter O'Toole, and Sean Bean as giving good performances, but every one else was a target. There are some weaker performances in the movie, I will admit that (for example, Saffron Burrows, whose acting in this movie consists of various combinations of weeping and shaking). But I want to defend the rest of the cast. Brendan Gleeson and Brian Cox are overacting as villainous brothers Menelaus and Agamemnon, but who cares? These are larger than life characters and they need to be played large. Personally, I enjoyed watching the two of them trying to chew apart every scene they were in. Orlando Bloom caught a lot of heat for a moony, whiny and annoying performance, but wait a minute - is that fair? Paris is moony, whiny and annoying. The fact that you hate Paris in this movie just means Orlando Bloom was doing his job effectively. And how about Brad Pitt as Achilles? Critics called his performance the epitome of Hollywood pretty boy miscasting. But I actually think that is what you need in this role. Achilles doesn't need to be a good actor; he needs old school Hollywood charisma. I don't care if he's one dimensional. I just want him to be charismatic chiseled weapon of destruction. Brad Pitt brings that to the movie. If his dialogue delivery is a little flat in a few scenes, he looks and moves every inch like Achilles. And in every scene with Brad Pitt, your eyes are naturally drawn to him. That is what you need in Achilles. He is the greatest warrior in all of literature.

I've been hearing these two criticisms unfairly leveled against Troy for years, so I just wanted to speak up in the film's defense. But I don't want to defend the film too much as it has some very big problems. Like below:

1) There is only so much you should change the legend!

If you are adapting an old tale, re-envisioning or updating it, there are certain things that can and cannot be changed. If you want to kill certain characters who are supposed to live, or visa versa, that's okay. I'm not a stickler for the details. But Troy goes too far. The city of Troy falls. Paris dies. Helen goes back to Greece. That's the whole point. The story of Paris and Helen cannot end well  They are responsible for the destruction of their city and the deaths of thousands of their people. They simply can not live happily ever after. So when Paris and Helen escape to the mountains, are we supposed to be happy for them while the city is burned and pillaged? What the hell?

The confusing thing is that they even set up Paris' death nicely. Before running into the city to save his cousin, Paris hands a young boy named Aeneas the Sword of Troy, saying so long as a Trojan holds this sword, her people will have a future. Since in the legend, Aeneas went on to lead the Trojan survivors to Italy and that his descendants founded Rome, I thought this was a cool little bit. But when Paris survives and escapes with everyone else, I had to wonder what was the point of the whole Aeneas scene? Now its just random and pointless.

2) Helen

She is partially responsible for starting the war, after all. But after the first half of the film, where all she does is mope, she largely vanishes. Nobody liked Helen in this movie, and a lot of people blamed Diane Kruger's acting. I think she is just badly written and not given anything to do. Playing the most beautiful woman in history is an impossible task in of itself. But add that to filmmakers who don't really know what to do with you after the opening act...poor Kruger was being set up as a target from the very beginning! What a wasted opportunity to play up the guilt, the horror that this conflict is her fault. They could and should have done something with that. They only hint at it once, in a beautifully done moment before Hector goes off to fight Achilles. Helen waits for him by the gate, weeping, because she knows that the best man in the city was about to be killed protecting her. It's a good moment, and the movie needed more of that.

3) Death of Patroclus

This is such a stupid moment! When Hector kills Patroclus, both armies stop fighting (as if all 10,000 men could have known this duel was happening) and get all depressed because the young man was killed. "That's enough killing for one day" and they all go home. What?? First of all, Patroclus isn't that young and was certainly not any younger than half the other people getting slaughtered in the movie. We didn't stop fighting for any of those guys. I think the writers just didn't know how to end the scene. They wrote themselves into a corner and had to think of a way to end the fight before the Trojans won the battle. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but this scene is STUPID!

4) Patroclus and Achilles

Speaking of Patroclus, I think they missed a big opportunity. Patroclus was Achilles' friend, not his cousin. There is even some subtext that he is Achilles' lover. I think the studios got afraid because they didn't want their sexy leading man to be gay. What safer way to do that than turn his best friend/lover into his cousin? But how much more interesting would the scenes in Achilles' camp have been if they had kept that part of the story intact? What an interesting love triangle. Achilles falls in love with the Trojan priestess, Briseis, and rejects the war and prepares to return home. In doing this, he is not just rejecting his old life as a warrior but is rejecting the loved one who represents that life: Patroclus. In the movie, Patroclus is just some whiny kid who is bummed out because he never gets to fight. Wouldn't it be better if he sees Briseis as what she is, as a rival and a threat? Suddenly, Patroclus being killed by Hector takes on more meaning. It ignites Achilles, who unleashes his vengeance on the battlefield. Such fury makes more sense if it is the love of your life who has just been killed. I'm not saying that the filmmakers needed to go Brokeback Mountain in ancient Greece. If the studios were worried, they could have kept this subtle. But I think this decision to make Patroclus a cousin just smacks of marketing fears. Pity. I think they missed an opportunity for good drama!

Okay, my ramblings are over. Thanks for indulging! New review next time - the terrific Chinese film, Ip Man!

Troy: Director's Cut

Troy: Director's Cut

As a child, my mind was lost in myths, legends and history. I spent hours devouring the stories of Alexander the Great, King Arthur, and the Trojan War, my imagination completely captured. Unfortunately, in 2004, Hollywood managed to take all three of my childhood dreams and send them crashing back down to Earth. (I speak of Alexander, King Arthur, and Troy). Of the three, Troy was probably the best. When it worked, it truly did work. There are moments that really are grand epic fun. But when it was bad...oh, boy, was it bad. The worst part was that it just seemed sloppy. Strange shots, bad editing, and questionable plot decisions ruined what could have been a solid film.

But has the new Troy: Director's Cut solved these problems? Yes and no. Make no mistake - this is not Kingdom of Heaven, where the director's cut turned the film from an interesting failure to one of the best films of the year. The major problems with Troy remain. Some of the acting is goofy, characterizations are often lazy and one-dimensional, and all the major plotting problems are still there.

But make no mistake, those problems are not as noticeable because the film has gone through quite an upgrade. This film is longer than the theatrical version, but it actually feels shorter! That is because of subtle changes that director Wolfgang Peterson made, shifting the pacing of the film, fixing any sloppiness and providing a full color adjustment that makes the film much more vibrant and beautiful to look at. The theatrical cut dragged in a lot of places and its problems were glaring. The Director's Cut moves along so smoothly that the problems don't bother me quite so much. The added scenes add some necessary and welcome character development, especially for Sean Bean's wonderful Odysseus.

In almost every way, the Director's Cut is better. My one complaint is about the music, which most people won't notice. But since I love film scores, I have to complain! The score for Troy was a last minute replacement by James Horner (Braveheart) and he wrote, recorded and mixed the entire score in 13 days. Which is pretty impressive, even if the score isn't great. But it at least got the job done efficiently. But Peterson has stripped Horner's score almost entirely from the film. The one piece he did like, he re-uses about seventeen thousand times. Then he sprinkles in music from other movies like Planet of the Apes and Starship Troopers. The rest of the music, playing wall-to-wall during dialogue scenes that don't even need music sound like a chimp farting out notes on a Yamaha synthesizer. It is TERRIBLE! And horribly distracting to me. But hey, I admit it, I might be psycho about this kind of thing. So take this with a grain of salt...

Other than that, the Director's Cut is a definite improvement over the theatrical version. If you liked the movie before, you will probably love it now. If you thought it was okay, you might like it just a little bit more. But if you hated it, this version won't do anything to change your mind. To me, it is an improved, but still not great movie. It still doesn't live up to my childhood dreams, but at least it isn't destroying them. So that's my sum-up.

P.S. I have also written a review of James Horner's score to Troy. Check it out by going to SoundtrackDB!

MVP: Gotta give it to Sean Bean. I just really enjoyed the heck out of his performance as Odysseus. And he succeeds in giving life to this iconic character with not a lot to work with. I actually want them to make a sequel because I would love to see Sean Bean in The Odyssey, tackling sirens and sea monsters!

TRIVIA: Brad Pitt (who played Achilles) injured himself during the production of the film. Ironically, he injured his achilles tendon.

BEST LINE: (minor spoiler?) Priam: I loved my boy from the moment he opened his eyes until the moment you closed them."  On paper, this doesn't sound like much of a line, but you need to see its moving delivery!

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Costume Design