Attila

a bad movie ? not exactly. only awful. small ordinaries tricks, blood and fake history's use. and a film about nothing with ambition to became a series. absurd, illogical but useful like each bad movie for a strange form of fun who has not the status of irony but only surprise. it is not original, only clone of clone of clones of many stupid movies who are not sense, not script, not actors and represents just a small place near hard pornography. because the source, maybe the purpose are the same. only problem after its end is the choice of Hun leader. which is his huge sin for be victim of this form of cultural garbage ? so, only mercy for the poor Attila saves the film for few days after the meeting. but it is far to save it in real sense.

Attila from the get go was always going to be a movie to not take seriously, and despite The Asylum having a mostly terrible track record Attila also deserved a fair chance. If the execution was at least passable it could have been fun. Unfortunately Attila was too inept that it was not easy at all to enjoy it, one of those movies where you have to look long and heard to detect a redeeming value. Attila is a low-budget movie but also an example of one where visually no real effort seems to have been made. It is very choppily edited and the special effects look rushed and look 10-15 years at least out of date. The music is too obtrusive, is not sympathetic to what's happening and it sounds generic too, while the sound is on the muddied side. When the music wasn't drowning out the dialogue, it was really painful to hear how mind-numbingly, inanely corny it sounded and also how it makes no attempt to develop the characters or make the story or the goings on understandable. The story was a ridiculous one to start with but it is told so messily that it comes across often as incoherent, it's also rather dull with the tension and fun levels next to nil. The characters are little more than stereotypical ciphers, and there was no point in calling the villain Attila the Hun, because the villain here is the complete opposite to what Attila stood for. For all we know, he could have been any low-budget creature, acting like a zombie and looking like a mummy, and to make things worse he exudes no personality or sense or threat, completely forgettable. The acting in Attila is not good at all, in fact it's laughably bad. Steve Hanks is the best actor in the movie and he still overeggs the pudding, and Chris Conrad when we are eventually introduced to him has the opposite problem in that he's wooden and plays it far too straight. Lastly, the fight scenes and stunts are very repetitive, tiredly choreographed and clumsily edited. Summing things up Attila is an ineptly terrible movie all round, one to see once and forget. 1/10 Bethany Cox

"Attila" contains action, plot and story-line reminiscent of movies made in the 1950's. The easy- to-follow story, fast paced action and of course..lots of blood reminded me of my youth sitting in a small-town theatre on a Saturday afternoon. If "Attila" were done in black and white I would have questioned the filming date. Under the direction of Emmanuel Itier I believe "Attila" hits it's mark. Cheik Kongo shows his incredible athleticism as the Nomad and scares the bejesus out of you without the utterance of a single word. Chris Conrad's portrayal of "Vito" makes him a believable hero and Mikayla Campbell's "McVee" the perfect heroine. Stunts were all too prevalent and often made you wonder "How'd they do that?". Xin's martial arts work was true artistry. Other strong performances came from Hossein Mardani as "Fleetwood" and Poncho Hodges as "Bulldog". Would like to see more from the screen writing team of Anthony Ferrante and Emmanuel Itier.

Yes, it is a bit underfounded, especialy lacking on the monster-design. But you can feel somebody (I suspect the director) cared for this film.

I'm not sure if it'd worked better as Scorpion King-like muscle-film, or this way, but it is decent either way, way more than what I expected seeing the coolness of the poster.

I'm glad The Asylum bother to scrap the bottom of the budget barrel to make a great-for-parties film. I wish the big studios would do the same, and the mid-budget films would come back to fashion.

Alright, well what can be said, this is definitely not one of the finest moments in the movie-making history of The Asylum. When I saw their logo on the screen as the first thing, I sort of lost motivation to watch this movie. And had I checked IMDb first and seeing how the movie has been rated, I would have stopped dead in my tracks and spent my time on something else. But then again, from time to time (rare as it might be, though), The Asylum do manage to put out a movie that surprises and turns out to be great. "Attila", however, was definitely not one of those rare instances.

The storyline in the movie was adequate, take it for what it is; supernatural nonsense without any coherency towards realism. This movie is a no-brainer; the type you could watch during a really bad hangover.

The acting in the movie was wooden and rigid, and that really did nothing to help lift up the movie. But the acting wasn't the main detraction against the enjoyment of the movie. It was the effects and the stupidity of it all.

This movie failed on so many occasions and accounts. First of all, what scientist with a significant discovery in the staff of Moses, would examine it so carelessly and without protective devices, such as gloves, brushes, etc. to preserve the found and not contaminate it? And the scene itself where he cuts his finger on the unnaturally ragged and sharp teeth of the corpse was so forced and staged, it looked like he wasn't even trying to make it look like an accident. And what happened to those fangs once the corpse resurrected, they just turned into normal teeth, right...

As for the subject of the found piece of the staff, sure I can buy into blood resurrecting the long dead Hun warrior, given the supernatural storyline, but where did his pristine outfit come from? And why was it only his face that was a decayed zombie-like visage, while the rest of his body was ordinary whole and without a trace of decay?

Proceeding with the awakened Hun warrior; bullets fired against him produce sparks upon impact with his person. Wait, what? Seriously? So the guy is made of metal? It was just ridiculous. And how would a person from the period of Attila know how to roll under a moving car, directly under the chassis to break the car and take it out of commission? I was laughing so hard when I saw that scene.

The movie's cover looks alluring and interesting, but it is so far from the actual contents of the movie as it could almost physically be. Do not get suckered in by the cover, because you are setting yourself up for a most horrible disappointing.

If you enjoy super campy and cheesy movies with horrible story lines and even worse effects, then you might find some perverse enjoyment in watching "Attila". Otherwise, then I wouldn't really recommend that you spend your time on this particular movie.