Rating: 
Summary: not historical, mildly entertaining
Review: WILDLY historically flawed, with some dialogue that will no doubt bring chuckles, this little miniseries still manages to be entertaining. Whether that is due to the acting and action or the goofs made by the producers remains to the individual viewer. What's wrong with this little movie? Let's start with the Huns and their king, Attila. The Huns were a Turko-Mongol race, short, swarthy, and usually with a somewhat bowlegged stance that came from fighting, riding, eating, and even sleeping on horseback. Attila himself was described by many contemporary historical sources as short, squat, a very thin wisp of a beard on his chin, and a flat nose. He was also middle-aged at the time of his great conquests. This army and king as represented in the movie are all basically Caucasians. People, there ARE Turkish/Asiatic actors and extras out there for hire .... and all the women swooning over Gerard Butler in these comments need to balance this with historical fact. The comment that only a "good looking" person could have united/led so many is very amusing - apparently no one has taken a close look at Mussolinni, Stalin, or Winston Churchill for that matter. Also, the costumes of these Huns look like Avars, not Hunnish culture. Let's take a look at the Romans - the Empire of the fifth century was VERY different from the empire of the great caesars ... yet the uniforms and civilian dress of the Rome shown here looks no later than the time of Septimius Severus. Sorry, but the horse-hair helmets and leather skirts of the military tribunes were long past - the Romans of this time were wearing breaches and what was left of the legions was highly barbarized and calvary-emphasized. The togas of the civilians had become much more coarse and simple by that time, also. The Empire was basically Christianized by then, too - yet this miniseries depicts paganism as rampant. Another problem was that there just weren't enough extras to make the battles scenes believable. The Huns formed "hordes" - and these were not patrol-sized groups of a hundred horseman riding around - historians show these armies numbered nominally around 60,000. And the main battle - somewhere near modern Chalons or Troyes - the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains - had the combatants numbering somewhere between 300,000 to half a million. Showing this battle to be between a couple of hundred men was anticlimatic in the extreme. Good camerawork could have avoided this ... see BRAVEHEART, FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, SPARTACUS, or CLEOPATRA. Although many may have felt some of the violence was too much in this film, the reality was FAR worse - Attila was mild to those who submitted, but the mass slaughter the Huns committed in battle was rivaled in pre-20th century only by the Mongols of Genghiz Khan. Some cities in Italy were so destroyed that the next generation couldn't accurately find where they existed. Having said all this, I liked the film as a piece of entertainment and taking certain ludicrous errors into consideration, recommend it as a nice diversion. The DVD is nicely authored in 1:77:1 and has some decent extras.
Rating: 
Summary: A Pleasant Surprise
Review: Yes, 'Attila' is not totally accurate in its historical details, and yes, it was intended to ride on the fame of 'Gladiator.' However, I have found that 'Attila' does have a few things to recommend it to the discriminating viewer. If you can see past the mighty armies of a few hundred men, the plastic armor and the soundtrack that borrows motifs from the score to 'Gladiator,' 'Attila' does make a statement.I remember my college World History 101 professor lecturing about the mysterious "hordes from the steppes of Eurasia" that cropped up from time to time during the Bronze and Iron Ages. This is what 'Attila' is all about. After a millenium of glory, Rome is corrupt, decadent and weak. A new band of people, the Huns, have come down from the steppes and are full of energy, but are disorganized and lack direction. There is only one man who can rebuild Rome- Aetius; and one man who can unite the Huns- Attila; which will prevail and lead the world into a new era? What really makes 'Attila' stand out from other epic historical dramas is its treatment of its protagonists. Most epic characters from films, like 'Spartacus' or William Wallace from 'Braveheart', are brimming with honor and nobility-- these are people you wish you could have for next-door neighbors. In 'Attila,' however... Aetius, the potential savior of Rome, has all the cunning and stoic determination of previous Roman leaders-- but is not portrayed as a young go-getter like the Julius Caesar of 'Spartacus' or a man in the prime of life like Maximus in 'Gladiator'-- instead he is a middle-aged man who, when the film begins, has already bungled his best chance to seize the throne of the Caesars and is rotting in prison. Attila, on the other hand, is a handsome and charismatic young man who was traumatized by witnessing the murder of his family as a child and, perhaps as a result, is not quite right in the head. Attila's idea of a good time is to ride into a defenseless village and massacre the peasants he finds there. One of the film's major achievements is that it manages to make the audience sympathize with these rather unsavory characters. Also, the emperors of the two halves of the empire are given a different treatment than is usual for toga flicks: rather than being a maniac, the Roman emperor Valentinian is simply a moron- while the Byzantine emperor Theodosius is a corpulent and bitter degenerate for whom assassination is just a useful political tool. 'Attila,' although definitely an action movie, is also politically correct. The misogyny of the Romans is clearly shown to be one of the empire's weaknesses, while the Hun empire turns out to be an egalitarian paradise that treats people from all over eastern Europe equally. The pagan beliefs of the Huns are also shown to have more substance than the weak version of Christianity practiced by the Romans. Whether or not this has anything to do with real history is highly questionable. In the end, the view the film takes of the era is that history was at a crossroads: either Aetius could have rebuilt Rome, Attila could have forged a Hun empire, or the Western World would be plunged into the Dark Ages (which do you think happened?). Especially intriguing are certain lines that imply that modern America has certain similarities to late-stage Rome (such as a remark on the excessive salaries of Roman athletes). One could ask if America is on the verge of being overthrown by barbarians. As a DVD the film has some nice pluses. On the DVD is a trailer and 'making of' featurette originally aired on USA to promote the film, and a the rather complicated web-interfacing picture gallery. A Dolby 5.1 version of the audio is included, which is really fantastic. Also, the video is in widescreen 'theatrical' format which is an improvement from its t.v. debut. Strangely, the video is a little soft on darker colors- one review I read elsewhere said that it was due to a low quality film being used during filming. Another technical note: as the 'making of' bit reveals, very little cgi was used for special effects. 'Attila' harkens back to an old-fashioned way of making movies using optical effects, which is a nice change from modern Hollywood- where all too often the plot is used to support the effects, and not the effects to support the plot. Bottom line: if you can appreciate a brooding epic that does not glorify its protagonists and portrays 'history' on the grand scale, this is for you. If you want a really 'Hollywood' film that is not going to make you think and will leave you feeling good, you won't like it.
Rating: 
Summary: Just like the National Enquirer this is 5 star entertainment
Review: You've gotta love these historical mini-series epics. Despite the fact that we all know (we do all know don't we..?) that back then men were shorter, dental hygene was a bit hit and miss and corsets were not de rigeur in Rome or out (even if the female was a love interest) - it doesn't stop the epic mini-series from making sure that the principal historical players have had a quick session at the gym, seen the dentist, hairstylists and of course, spent am hour or two in the make-up van...although for the sake of historical accuracy it is best to smear some made-up dirt to visible body parts afterwards. It is this attention to detail that makes most of these series so darn watchable. With Attila, you can tell that they REALLY went out of their way. For example, Attila and comely Hun cohorts appear to have mostly been tall, dark and Scottish. Attila himself, for all his manly ways (pilage, rape, kill a few non-tribesman) clearly had a softer side, weeping at the loss of his red headed slave wife and often seen shaking his fists at God, which was progressive for a non-God worshiping nation like the Huns. The Romans, equally wonderful. Poweres Boothe acts his heart out in a manner that would please any junior school drama coach (poison me will you - well let me dramatically throw this goblet to the floor and stare off in to the distance - hah!) and looks terribly Roman with his famous sculpted Roman nose. The Romans coreograph orgys at the drop of a hat, something that you may not have known they did and there is wonderful dialogue which briefly introduces the viewer to Roman politics (oh so Machiavelian, if only he'd been born) - which involved a lot of eye twitching and cloak swishing. Just like the National Enquirer this is 5 star entertainment - with more a cellar, than a pinch, of salt.
|
