Hannibal

I did read Livius' Ab Urbe Condita, largely based on which the film was made. Thus I could not help comparing the film with what Livius originally wrote. (The Anglicized name of Livius is Livy. But I will stick to Livius in this review because I do not like the practice of Anglicization of proper names in general.)

Livius' spent more than ten books on the Second Punic War. So it is a very difficult task to condense the story within 90 minutes. The film has done relatively well. The most important events have been included. (It would have been better if Hannibal's political achievements after the conclusion of the Second Punic War had not been omitted. Hannibal was not only a great general, but also a good statesman.)

The major problem that I see with this film is historical inaccuracies.

The first moment that I was a bit turned off was when Hannibal said he would enter Italy via France. But the name France was not to exist for hundreds of years. Unlike Spain or Italy, France did not get its modern name until the beginning of the Middle Ages. I can understand that the director did not want to confuse modern audience with historical names like Gaul. But still, calling that region France in Hannibal's time is preposterous. The same with "Turkey" at the end of the film. Come on. The Turks would not be known in Europe for another 1500 years. (Fortunately they did not decide to call Carthage Tunisia.)

The scene that Hannibal ordered his soldiers to bring firewood and wine to break a big rock blocking his way in the Alps is based on a story told by Livius. But the authenticity of this story has long been disputed. Given its historical insignificance, I am not sure whether it was wise to include this story in the film while omitting many much more important events.

The BBC makes a lot of good historical documentaries and the story of Hannibal has everything needed for a great one. This treatment was very far from it, simply because it was too short. Given the length of Hannibal's campaign, much longer than Alexander's, a two hour documentary would be the minimum.

Okay, BBC doesn't have the budget and our knowledge of Hannibal is incomplete, not to mention that much of what we do know is in contention. Still, Hannibal's genius didn't just lie in his crossing of the alps and Cannae, but in general logistics. His being able to outmaneuver his opponents again and again. I would love to have seen the crossing of the Rhone, both Trebbia and Trasimene, and a lot more detail on Cannae and Zama, all of which are timeless classics in classical history. The fact that our knowledge is incomplete also allows for a lot of opportunists for informed guesswork and gap-filling, which the producers have missed out on.

All this is a huge shame because Siddig was a very believable Hannibal and a good actor. In general, BBC documentaries do history much better than Hollywood, because attention is given to accuracy, and the target audience is more specific. It's just unfortunate that they're limited by such things and budget and time constraints. Given the length of this show, it is unlikely that it will be released on DVD, and it will be a long time before there will be another attempt at Hannibal...

Nice to look at. Hannibal going over the Alps, the battle of Cannae, war elephants, and the major characters of this epic conflict are worthwhile looking at. The enormous dramatic potential of characters like Hannibal and his Roman adversaries, Varro, Fabius and Scipio have not been transferred to a really thrilling film, though. The whole script sticks very close to the ancient Roman historians Livius and Polybios - almost to the letter. Especially the titles introducing characters or events make the film look like a school film sometimes. Nonetheless Hannibal enthusiasts will have a pleasant evening with this movie.

his performance is admirable. and this is the first virtue of film. the second virtue - the BBC high science to give to public a seductive, impressive, fascinating portrait of the Hannibal actions. but, each god has its sacrifices. in this case - the historical accuracy. the first excuse - for a real close to testimonies image , it needs a series. and a smaller target. but a good, a real good thing defines this beautiful film - the return to the history lessons - as memories and fragments of rumors about the words of teacher about Zama , elephants and the force of Carthagena- but, maybe, in same measure, as return to the sources about the great hero and his wars against Rome. and this is the best detail in this case.

I have a bad habbit comparing everything about the ancient world these days to Gladiator, which is fictional but one testosterone bomb of a movie, with insane effect and a Russel Crowe with an aura that would make him the roman equalliant to the legendary Erwin Rommel if he was a general in old rome for real.

But as a documentary rather than a big budget fictional Hollywood-movie, Alexander Sidding fits the role of Hannibal well and I was very satisfied with the outcome of this film, even though the roman players were not much to brag about. But its fantastic they finally make a REALISTIC movie, where telling the true story are in focus! Why invent a bullshit story when we have so many real stories to make movies about? Fact is often more amazing than fiction! I got what i hoped for and a good lesson in history, although I wish the movie had dwelled more with everyday life in Carthage. The name Hannibal means "son of Baal", Baal being an acronym for the god we all know as Satan, which could be interesting to dwell with.

But it is a movie i definitely will have in my movie collection. Absolutely. It will not get a 10 as Gladiator, but an good 7. 3 from the the top 10 for not having Riddley Scot to make the scenery, plus all the roman actors should get sacked, and we should have Russel Crowe as Scipio Africanus instead! Now that would be one hell of a movie..