Attila

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Movie! Recommended!
Review: I originally saw this on TV and had to buy the DVD! Gerard Butler (Attila) gives an outstanding performance, I can't imagine who else could have the look and talent to pull off playing Attila any better - he makes Attila fierce, powerful, ambitious, intelligent, and caring all at once, and you find yourself really getting into his character and caring about him.

The movie is packed with action, drama, suspense and romance.. something for everyone! The effects are great, and the other actors are good as well. Definitely much more than I expected from a TV movie.

Rating:
Summary: Not Bad
Review: I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. It had some pluses, some minuses, and some historical inaccuracies, which I will detail as follows:

Pluses: The author of this screenplay had a good grasp of the events of this historical period. The movie in broad outline is mostly historically correct. Powers Boothe is a wonderfully Machiavellian Flavius Aetius. The characters of Valentinian III, Galla Placidia, and Honoria are generally portrayed well. The dialogue, while not exactly sparkling, is generally clean and avoids clunky archaisms. The plot avoids obvious absurdities, which, judging by the other movies I've seen, is no mean feat. The actress who plays Ildico is one hot babe.

Minuses: The budget shows by the lack of extras in the scenes. The Roman and Byzantine Courts don't seem to have a lot of retainers and flunkies running around. The battle sequences appear to involve dozens, perhaps hundreds of soldiers, instead of the thousands that actually participated. Attila's love interest is a little unconvincing. The plot really never seems to catch fire.

Anachronisms and inaccuracies: Attila is obviously romanticized, as the real Attila was more like a psychopathic dwarf than the quasi-Messianic Fabio clone we get in this movie. He probably died of a stroke and nasal hemorrhaging, rather than from poison. The legions look more like First Century Romans rather than legions of the Late Antique era. The suggestion, at the end of the movie, that the death of Attila help precipitate the Dark Ages is ludicrous.

All in all, though, this is an unusually accurate historical adventure with some nice touches. I enjoyed it. If I had seen it between the time I was 10 and 16, I might have loved it.

Rating:
Summary: Fun Movie! Hunky Men.
Review: I watched Attila at first with some skepticism, but found it a exciting and enjoyable film, especially the first half. While I doubt Attila was white (records describe him as being of Mongol descent), the actor did a convincing job. In particular I liked the character of the female mystic who grew up with Attila, and the beginning scenes of Attila as a young man in the village of his uncle

The second half of the film was a little less exciting. New characters are introduced with no background information and there were excessive battle scenes. Also, I was disappointed we never found out what happened to Attila's son, and the Roman commander daughter. I wish they had portrayed Attilla's death accurately, even if it was ignominious. Still, an excellent film, well worth a viewing!

Rating:
Summary: The Best!!!
Review: If I could give this movie more then 5 stars I would.If you like action,adventure,and a little bit of drama,then this is the movie for you.It has both love and war in it and Gerard Butler (Attila) gives the perfect amount of emotion at all the right times.So if i were you i would take a look at this movie.

Rating:
Summary: thoroughly entertaining
Review: If you want a history lesson, go to the library. If you want to to be entertained, watch this movie. It was well-acted, beautifully photographed and nicely scored. Not historically accurate, but it may well inspire research into what was an interesting period.

It doesn't matter if the real Attila the Hun was short, swarthy and flat-nosed in life, Gerard Butler played him with passion, and that's what made a 3-hour show seem brief. Powers Boothe and Alice Kriege were their nasty best. The witch character was a lot of fun as well.

All in all, Attila is a thoroughly entertaining work.

Rating:
Summary: Difficult to rate
Review: It's hard for me, when rating this movie, to give an accurate apraisal. Atilla was a made-for-tv movie, and thus puts it in a seperate category. Do I judge it in comparison to hollywood? Or in comparison to other TV movies?... it's tricky but here's a go...

Atilla is a biographical, historical film about many epic, but by no means original, themes - destiny, war, power, love, betrayal. The man commonly known to history as Atilla the Hun was voted one of the most hated men in all history (apparently he even beat hitler!). The infamous legend depicts a brutal barbarian warlord, who saight to destroy rome. An upstart tribe of barbarians threatening the end of the most powerful empire on earth is an appealing enough plot, but atilla takes a different direction, paying more close attention to the realer side of Atilla the hun - which isnt as anything like the horrible rap history gives him (history is written by the winners).

Atilla is shown in the movie as abhoring the roman way of life - the decadence, and coruption - the lies and trickery and politics. He does however, respect and admire it's power and status. "Civilization belongs to whoever is strong enough to take it" he says in the one scene. Seeing it as his destiny to destroy rome and rule the world, the inevitable result is war.

The plot and historical material is the strongest point of the film, being fairly accurate to the context of this point in history. Rome is shown as it was at this time as being in a constant internal power struggle, and ussing trickery, bribery and cleverness to divide and conquer it's enemies and thus keep its place in the world despite it's declining strength. The movie has some good points, but some negatives. The acting is pretty good sometimes, but overall isnt very good at all. The sounds arent very good, and effects are poor. You can tell this was a tv movie.

The first time I watched this movie I didnt like it, but it grew on me. I began to like both atillas character and the development of his relationship with rome (admiration and awe mixed with hatred and despise). The battle scenes are good for a tv movie but wouldnt hold a candle to cinematic masterpieces like brave heart or gladiator (the manuevers are more or less correct though, so that was a good point).

All in all... if this were a hollywood movie Id give it a solid 2 stars... maybe 3 just out of the kindness of my heart. But since most tv movies are so much worse than this, and since I actually did like the movie after rewatching it a few times, Im inclined to give it a very generous 4 stars. Deviding the difference gives us about 3 stars...

If you enjoy roman history or like this type of movie then Atilla might not be that bad a choice on a dull night, and it just might grow on you as it did me. For everyone else the weaker points of this movie will show through and could possibly stand in the way of enjoyment.

Rating:
Summary: Entertaining, yes, but...
Review: It's such a treat to see a movie about this fascinating period of history that one hates to cavil, but if you're going to make a historical epic, why not get it right? I'm not talking about plot details -- to tell a good story you've got to make stuff up, like Attila going to Rome and boffing the emperor's sister -- but rather about the false picture of Roman society this film conveys. To begin with, the orgy scene: the idea that the Romans were wallowing in sensual pleasure while the barbarians were at the gates is utter nonsense. Roman morals were strict, especially once Christianity had taken hold. And speaking of Christianity, we get scarcely a glimpse of the now-powerful Church and its grip on the court, not even a hint of the Pope's famous embassy that kept the Huns out of Italy.

Another reviewer has pointed out the inaccurate picture of Roman warfare. I'd add that it seems very odd that the close-ranked legionaries with their rectangular shields -- themselves an anachronism -- break ranks as soon as they get within striking distance of the enemy, thus sacrificing all the advantages of their formation!

Still, it's fun to see the stuff they did get right. Aetius was indeed raised among the Huns and was a friend to their kings, and his remarkable career merits greater fame. Honoria did send Attila a letter with her ring, which served as the pretext for attacking the western Empire. Valentinian may indeed have personally murdered Aetius. Great stuff for a costume drama; I just wish they had gone a little further and shown the late Roman world as it really was.

Rating:
Summary: Pleasing to the eye, but that's about it...
Review: Like many of the other reviewers I found this movie to be wildly inaccurate regarding the history of the Huns, as well as their depiction. I think the script was indeed poorly written & had there been more effort put into the writing then maybe the performances could have been better. Also, I think that the film's directors/producers failed to acquire more appropriate looking actors to depict the Turko/Mongolian group (Huns). Some of the characters such as Attila's brother (Bleda) looked right for the part, however Gerard Butler as Attila failed to fit the bill. Now I didn't mind him in the movie because as many women will agree -- he is a very attractive man -- but this role just wasn't right for him. Still, an interesting movie.

Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly accurate, but Attila is miscast
Review: Like other reviewers, my BS detector kept going off throughout this film, and there are moments that are too laughable to believed, not least of which is the movie's premise that Attila owed his empire to a proto-Phish fan named Gailan, who pranced around the forest with a beaver dam on her head.

But most of the movie, according to the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (from which the events of the film must have been drawn), is true. Improbably, Attila and Aetius did share a friendship, and the whole 'Excalibur' center of the film, which I laughed at hardest, was based on fact: Attila did use a war sword found by one of his subjects as a sign of his power.

There are small lapses: Theodosius and Placidia were both dead by the time Attila invaded Gaul, and the western empire's power, wealth and creativity at the time is exaggerated. To be fair, the movie does suggest a nation in decline. But "Attila" stumbles in its depiction of the Huns. They were not white. The Huns were an Asiatic people, closer to the Mongolians than the wandering tribe of Welshmen depicted in the film. Attila himself was short and squat, with an extremely thin beard and an imperious manner.

Gerard Butler, who plays Attila, is a tall, leonine man who tries to convey the hard edge of the conqueror in his performance. He bears a strong resemblance to Mel Gibson in "Braveheart," but Butler's performance suggests a guy who got a horse for the weekend and decided to invade France with his buddies. Half of his problem is the script, which wants the king of the Huns to be the Scourge of God and the Sensitive Teen, occasionally at the same time. But Butler lacks subtlety. He drops his voice when he's sad, and raises it when he's angry, and there's no in-between. Some unintentionally funny moments arise from the performance: "We could RULE the WORLD!" forced a chuckle out of me.

Powers Boothe, as Aetius, is superb, and nails his character's contradictions in the manner you would have expected from Butler. When he's on screen, the film takes on the later Roman Empire's blend of decadence, depravity and determination. It's fascinating, and nearly raises "Attila" to the level of minor classic. Alice Krige also does well as his Roman nemesis, Placidia. The battle scenes look cheap, though that's forgivable for a mini-series. The ending feels a bit rushed, even for a three-hour movie.

"Attila" will hold your attention. It's worth a rental. But you can't escape the feeling this could have been more.

Rating:
Summary: I couldn't resist this second review
Review: mentla from London United Kingdom (reviewer below) is obviously not a teacher, and possibly not an educated person, and certainly knows nothing about children. Of course this movie is inaccurate. What Hollywood, or any other movie, is totally accurate. Teachers use movies for a starting point to give children something to think about. This movie gets the kid's attention, then we point out the inaccuracies, differences of opinion, etc. From that point the student's must research for themselves. What fool thinks we teach this as "Gospel Truth". "Atilla" was filmed for entertainment purposes. It gets attention and holds it. We go from there, not end there. I thought everyone knew that. Geeeeez, didn't mentla from london United Kingdom (yes, that's the way this person spelled "London", without a capital. I guess that shows something) ever go to school?