Attila

Rating:
Summary: Sweeping (in every sense of the word) Epic! Loved It!
Review: "Attila" the film is a biopic of that great Hun who was not only the uniter of his people but a conqueror of world-class dimension if by "world" we mean Eurasia/Asia Minor. He was uncouth, bloody, savage, unaccustomed to the usual rules of brigade-oriented warfare; yet he was also a shrewd tactician who cared deeply about the welfare of his people, genuinely believed his conquered subjects were better off under him, and therefore strived to rule with justice.

The adult Attila is played by Gerard Butler, who is quite good at capturing Attila's warlike side and his more cerebral, introspective side. As Attila goes from becoming a mere chieftan to the ruler of an empire, his challenges go from providing his people mere sustenance to outthinking those clever Romans and outfighting those vicious Visigoths. Along the way he encounters his share of personal triumphs and tragedies and Butler plays this meaty role with relish. There isn't a false note among the supporting cast, most of whom will be unknown to American audiences, but look for Tim Curry as a Byzantine politician in, well, Byzantium.

The production standards for this epic are of cinematic quality, and if not for its relatively long length this piece could easily have played in American movie houses. Just because it was commissioned by the USA Network, don't assume there were any movie-of-the-week shortcuts taken in locations, casting, writing or direction, all of which are first-rate. "Attila" has an old-fashioned feel for what an historical epic should be, and I mean that as a compliment.

I found this movie utterly riveting. I do not assume it represents the full truth, for movie epics of this type are usually written to set up historical coincidences that did not exist in fact. The plot line is so strong that the film should really be seen straight through in one evening.

Rating:
Summary: Get this now!
Review: After watching this movie, I was indeed intrigued to follow up on the true history of Attila's life. The plot is superb, and bittersweet to the last. Though not historically accurate however, as there has to be limits to the span of this bilbography, the new twist is excellent and anguishes the audience to no end. A must-see!

The acting is top-notch, and memories of Braveheart are stirred!

Rating:
Summary: Thank you, thank you, thank you!!
Review: And again, thank you America. You have given me the two biggest laughs of the year. Firstly this shambles of a movie and then the reviews on this site. In the real world (i.e. not America) this film is so derided that even Amazon make fun of it on their UK site, and yet in America it's shown to students by their teachers!!! Wake up America, your movies are brain washing your children into a nation of fools. America was NOT the only country to land on those beaches as per Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart is one of the least accurate movie ever and U571 IS the most inaccurate movie ever (the Brits captured that sub before you were even forced to enter the war the rest of the world was already in).

This movie is a joke and should be treated as such. If you watch it in the right frame of mind the pathetic accents and inaccuracies are fantastic and make this an equal to Life of Brain. It's first rate comedy fully worthy of 5 stats but please God stop the rot in the US before it becomes irrevocable.

Rating:
Summary: review of Attila - janietee
Review: Anyone who is a Gerard Butler fan must see and own this film. He is simply superb and it is a fast-paced action film. When this was released on A&E, I was already enthralled by Phantom of the Opera (POTO), and didn't realize Mr. Butler was in this movie. I decided not to watch it on tv because I figured it would be violent and bloody. Well, it is pretty violent, but it depicts a violent time in world history. And with Butler in it, the decision was made. I ordered the DVD and it is wonderful. Lots of action, sweeping vistas, battles and political intrigue. I think that with the advent of POTO, people in the US will be clamoring for more of Gerard Butler. When you look at both these films -- POTO and Attila -- you see the range of which Butler is capable.
He does not disappoint and the film is exciting and entertaining.
As I said, quite a lot of violence in battles and personal attacks and a good deal of sexual nuance but both are within plot lines and not gratuitous.

Rating:
Summary: The best Hollywood history I've seen....
Review: As far as movies go, that you can show to minors, this is the best Hollywood "history" I've ever seen. I am a 7th grade world history teacher. I show this video every year to start the year with the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire. The students LOVE this video. They talk about it all year, and never forget it. Months after I've shown it, they are still talking about Attila. They compare every video I show them to Attila. The only one that even comes close is Charlemagne. Not even Genghis Kahn (No, not the one with John Wayne, "The Conqueror". I wouldn't show that to my dog). I advise every world history teacher, who teaches the time period from late antiquity to modern time. to show this movie.
The only reason I don't give it five stars is due to some inaccuracies, but nothing is ever perfect, except maybe "Tombstone".

Rating:
Summary: Inaccurate but Good
Review: Attila attempts to portray the struggle of two men and two cultures between 433 and 453 AD. On the one hand, Attila the Hun is depicted in a fairly favorable light as a Barbarian warlord bent upon raising his steppe-dwelling people up from poverty to world domination. General Flavius Aetius, wonderfully acted by Powers Boothe, is depicted as the "last of the Romans," intent upon frustrating Attila's conquests and thereby preserving the tottering Roman Empire. Thus, the stage is set for a great mano-i-mano battle between the haves and the have-nots of the world. As history, the film gets the essential elements correct: Attilla and Aetius did exist and do most of the things depicted. The film is also rich in the tensions evident in a decaying Roman empire and a seething mass of Barbarians awaiting the final death throes. However, the film also abbreviates and alters a great many of the particulars of this classic late-empire struggle.

Aetitius was in fact something of a barbarian himself. Although the film depicts him as imprisoned by the conniving regent, the mother of the Emporer Valentinian III, Aetitius in fact spent three years (430-433 AD) hiding out with the Huns after an unsuccessful power struggle. There were virtually no "Roman" troops left for Aetitius to command and he relied heavily on Huns and Goths to fill out his ranks. The film's depiction of Roman troops in 1st Century AD uniforms and equipment is erroneous. Attila's troops are also depicted as ethnic Europeans when in fact, they were of central Asian origin. The more bizarre but factual Hun traits, such as ritual mutilation of their faces to make themselves seem more fearsome, are not shown. The final Battle of Chalons is not represented accurately at all, but it still interesting. Many such aspects of this film will be annoying to historians for lacking in veracity.

In fact, it is rather surprising to see such a favorable impression of the Huns. Personally, I was cheering when Attila drinks poison at the end, because he was one of the most evil and dangerous men in history. Attila's entire legacy consists of devastation, arson, looting and murder. He and his Huns were only capable of destruction, not creation, as this film suggests. Had he been more successful, Christianity might have been destroyed in infancy.

Unlike the flashier film Gladiator, Attila has much more character depth and plot outline. The twenty-year struggle of Attila versus Aetitius is far more interesting than a simple revenge movie. While many small details are incorrect, the film does get the major issues correct. There are not many films about the later years of the Roman Empire, but this film is probably one of the best.

Rating:
Summary: The Best Epic Miniseries Thus Far
Review: Attila could easily have been a theatrical release. For a made-for-television miniseries event, that is perhaps one of the highest compliments that I can pay. Attila has some of the best production values ever seen for such a film, and uses them to grand effect. Even the score (which closely, and no doubt intentionally,resembles Hans Zimmer's from Gladiator) achieves an usual level of excellence.

Gerard Butler (an up-and-coming Scottish actor with a fair share of talent) stars as Attila the Hun,the intelligent and ambitious warlord who gave the Roman Empire a run for its money. His friend and rival, a Roman general named Flavius Aetius (portrayed solidly by Powers Boothe), is all that stands between Attila and the destruction of the Empire that he so adores. Their relationship and rivalry is at the heart of the film, and is also the highlight of the production. While some made-for-television epics go more for special effects and massive battles, Attila is character-driven, and delightfully so. There are grand battles as well, and fine visuals that bring Rome and the Huns to life, but none of these things can make a good film on their own(which is something that Jason and the Argonauts should have learned). Fortunately for Attila, it is blessed with clever writing, good direction, and above-average performances. It's no Gladiator or Braveheart, but it's come closer than any miniseries has ever come before.

There are doses of the supernatural in Attila that seem rather out-of-sorts and silly in a film of this type, and yet Attila offers a cynical dose of realism with its leading characters. Neither Attila nor Flavius are the most sympathetic of people, and yet at the same time they are both likable, even admirable, in their own way in spite of their many immoral failings. When Attila and Flavius square off to decide the fate of Rome and the newfound Empire of the Huns, it is almost impossible to chose a side, and that makes the outcome somewhat unfulfilling. The whole of the production is a rising action that somehow manages to fizzle disappointingly upon its conclusion. And yet, as a whole, Attila is a remarkable film, espesially given that it was made for USA Network.

As a feature film, it might be worth 3 stars - but as a made-for-television film, it earns 4 with flying colors...

Rating:
Summary: Good movie, but lacking historical accuracy! Why???
Review: Attila is a very good movie that brings to life the director's version of how he would have liked Attila the Hun's story to have been. The movie does not faithfully follow the original sources on Attila the Hun, rather it is INSPIRED by these, and therefore has a great deal of flaws and deviations from the real accounts. One could list one after another the discrepancies that occur, and for those that have read/studied History, you know the list would be very long indeed, some will say too long... From this very long list the most important alteration of course was when dealing with Attila himself, who is portrayed as "really nice guy" who is "determined" to have his way, when in actual fact he was one of the most brutal/lethal people to have existed (what so many tend to call a "butcher" and a "tyrant" these days...). Even though this is Hollywood and one should be more flexible and lenient when dealing with adaptations, one should also keep in mind that one must never do so at the expense of accuracy i.e. the truth. Why? Because Attila was a REAL person and a very important historical figure and not part of some modern twentieth century novel! Therefore, the only real problem arises when the majority of people (and most people have NOT read the actual sources) who see the movie start believing that events happened the way the movie depicts/portrays and not the way they actually did. Consequently, due to this distortion, the movie poses a very serious danger of producing armies of misinformed people who think they know Attila's history when they really do not. Not good!
On the positive side, the movie does succeed in transporting the viewer back in time when the Roman Empire had recently been divided into Eastern and Western parts, following Emperor Theodosius's death in 395 AD and the subsequent division of the Empire between his two sons: Arcadius and Honorius.
The film does a great job of presenting these times and therefore providing a very accurate and thus, contradicting Decadent West (Rome) compared to the Pious East (Constantinople).
The movie is action packed, the acting is very good and the cast are wonderful. The actors' performances are outstanding, especially Tim Curry playing the Byzantine Emperor, steals the show, but also the rest of the actors who have done a superb job of providing an entertaining film that can be watched over and over again. Hopefully, more movies will be made set in the ancient times, as the demand for them is definitely there. And hopefully they will be historically accurate as well!
In short, it is my belief that the movie deserves 4 stars for the top quality and entertainment it provides, but falls short of 5 stars for deviating so much from the original and creating a sense of confusion among viewers.

Rating:
Summary: Good movie, but lacking historical accuracy! Why???
Review: Attila is a very good movie that brings to life the director's version of how he would have liked Attila the Hun's story to have been. The movie does not faithfully follow the original sources on Attila the Hun, rather it is INSPIRED by these, and therefore has a great deal of flaws and deviations from the real accounts. One could list one after another the discrepancies that occur, and for those that have read/studied History, you know the list would be very long indeed, some will say too long... From this very long list the most important alteration of course was when dealing with Attila himself, who is portrayed as "really nice guy" who is "determined" to have his way, when in actual fact he was one of the most brutal/lethal people to have existed (what so many tend to call a "butcher" and a "tyrant" these days...). Even though this is Hollywood and one should be more flexible and lenient when dealing with adaptations, one should also keep in mind that one must never do so at the expense of accuracy i.e. the truth. Why? Because Attila was a REAL person and a very important historical figure and not part of some modern twentieth century novel! Therefore, the only real problem arises when the majority of people (and most people have NOT read the actual sources) who see the movie start believing that events happened the way the movie depicts/portrays and not the way they actually did. Consequently, due to this distortion, the movie poses a very serious danger of producing armies of misinformed people who think they know Attila's history when they really do not. Not good!
On the positive side, the movie does succeed in transporting the viewer back in time when the Roman Empire had recently been divided into Eastern and Western parts, following Emperor Theodosius's death in 395 AD and the subsequent division of the Empire between his two sons: Arcadius and Honorius.
The film does a great job of presenting these times and therefore providing a very accurate and thus, contradicting Decadent West (Rome) compared to the Pious East (Constantinople).
The movie is action packed, the acting is very good and the cast are wonderful. The actors' performances are outstanding, especially Tim Curry playing the Byzantine Emperor, steals the show, but also the rest of the actors who have done a superb job of providing an entertaining film that can be watched over and over again. Hopefully, more movies will be made set in the ancient times, as the demand for them is definitely there. And hopefully they will be historically accurate as well!
In short, it is my belief that the movie deserves 4 stars for the top quality and entertainment it provides, but falls short of 5 stars for deviating so much from the original and creating a sense of confusion among viewers.

Rating:
Summary: The finctional hun...
Review: Attila the Hun is a shadowy character in history. This is primarily due to the fact that the Huns and other peoples allied with and subject to them left little by way of written documentation. Most of what we know comes through Roman Imperial sources; even the legends that originated beyond the borders of the Eastern and Western Imperial lands were transcribed (and no doubt modified in the process) by the writers to suit their world view, if not particular political intentions.

Much of the legendary Attila has been re-worked over time so that many nations in Europe and Asia have claimed at one time or another either kinship with or victory over or subjugation to Attila. Some of these legends show forth in the movie, and others do not. This movie does not get high marks for historical accuracy. The Roman political scene is not as it is described; save for a few of the names that have been preserved, few of the events and intrigues presented in the film have any historical accuracy. Unlike films that play fast and loose with history while maintaining some integrity with the subject (notable examples include Elizabeth, I Claudius, and Pearl Harbor), this movie is, apart from the most general of frameworks of characterization, a work of fiction.

The primary historical argument I would have (beyond the fictional political intrigues which provided much of the plot) was the nearly-complete absence of the early church and its influence. This was a period in which the old Roman order was failing, both in the East and West, and the power of bishops, including Leo, bishop (pope) of Rome, was on the rise. There is virtually no mention of the church at all, and the power brokers of the church are absent ' history records that, often as not, it was the bishop of the cities being attacked that negotiated peace or terms or surrender, and not the imperial diplomatic corps. Leo himself is credited with keeping Attila from attacking Rome. One would never gather this from the film. Of course, these scenes are not given to great drama. However, earlier films on Attila have included something of these scenes.

Likewise, we do not know that Attila had a fascination with red-haired women (a key element in the film), or that he was murdered after his wedding by a disgruntled-captive-become-queen. These are speculation, but there are legendary sources that could lend support. I can forgive a movie like 'Gladiator', which does not purport to be based on actual events more than I can overlook such issues in a movie designed to present an actual historical figure. Attila's legendary death is recorded by various sources in differing ways ' some by slaves, some by freeborn, some by a wife revenging herself, some by natural causes, some by angels bent on protecting the young, developing Christendom. Most likely he was murdered, as many Hun and other tribal leaders were, but as the records are sketchy at best, and his body laid to rest in an unknown place, it is unlikely we shall ever know definitely.

These criticisms aside, the movie is entertaining. Gerard Butler, a newcomer Scotsman, does a serviceable job as Attila (and, as a note of historicity, it is appropriate that a Celt should play this role, as an enemy of Rome). He has played smaller roles in films such as 'Mrs. Brown' and 'One More Kiss', but this is his first major role.

A few mentions should be given to Powers Boothe (who plays the Roman general Flavius Aetius) and Alice Krige (who plays the mother of the Western emperor Valentian), who give powerful performances, albeit with stilted scripts and direction. They perform their roles well. Sian Phillips (from 'I Claudius' fame, among others) is lost potential in her small cameo at the beginning, and Tim Curry is under-utilised as the Eastern Emperor Theodosius. Mention should also be made of Andrew Pleavin, as the honourable and loyal general to Attila, Orestes (ironically, again, this shining character is based upon what one historian calls 'the most unprincipled turn-coat in history'). His role is brief but memorable.

The battle scenes are fair, although it is apparent that low budgets caused many corners to be cut, both for numbers (yes, we have been spoiled by the Cecil B. DeMille epic styles) and for equipment/settings. The same is true for the overall sets. (Apparently Rome only had one street and three buildings.) In setting up the contrast between Roman opulence and barbarian simplicity, the sets were effective. However, there was insufficient attention to detail to give it believability.

Alas, there is not much more to say. My friends and I have often used the phrase 'USA movie' to denote that type of film that is not bad, but not really great, that is entertaining to a degree, but not inspiring. A fairly generic film. The music was passing fair, but far from memorable. The overall direction and cinematography was competent but generic. This is a film worth watching, but only once, and then followed by an intensive course of reading to see what the world was really like.

If there is one great advantage of the film, it is that it might inspire people to learn more about Attila and the Roman Empire during the period of its decline.