Átila, o Huno

Presumably the writer of this mini-series had to read the history of Attila and Aetius before he could change it into the pap presented. You would think it would have been easier to leave as written, and certainly more interesting.

Just to give one example. After the battle and the death of the Roman ally King Theodoric, this movie has Theordoric's son insisting of leaving immediately to fight his brothers for the throne, and thus depriving the Roman general Aetius of the strength to decisively destroy Attila. Thus a mildly interesting and fairly predictable plot as far as it goes. The historical reality is that Aetius advised the son to leave to take care of his brothers as he was insisting on revenging his father against Attila. Aetius preferred not to destroy the Huns as his and Rome's whole strategy at that time had been to play groups such as the Huns off against other barbarian tribes that had entered or threatened the Empire. To my mind a more interesting development.

Of course it might have taken slightly more effort to get this idea across to viewers but the effort would have been a far more memorial series which the poor sets and acting could never achieve. While I can understand budget limitations that make good sets and hordes of extras difficult I cannot understand the almost perverse need to change history even when the original is much more interesting.

An amusing watch just the same but disappointing that for the cost of another writer it could not have been so much better.

"Attila" is a romanced story of Attila the Hun (Gerard Butler), since his childhood, when he lost his parents until his death. The screenplay shows his respect to the great Roman strategist Flavius Aetius (Powers Boothe, with his usual face of 'bad guy'), his loves, the gossips, intrigues and betrayals in Rome, all of these evolved by magic and mysticism. Attila certainly was one of the most evil man along the story, but the screenplay shows him as a great leader, strategist and lover. If you decide to forget the story and attain to the plot itself, you will see and enjoy a great epic movie. The underrated Gerard Butler has another magnificent performance. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Atila, o Huno" ("Attila, the Hun")

I hate to disagree with the prior analysises, but this movie told me next to nothing about Attila that I didn't know before. I knew that he slew his brother to gain the throne; I knew that he died on his wedding night. But what I wanted to know is why, when Rome had managed to repel barbarian attack after barbarian attack, these barbarians should suddenly show up, make so much of an inroad and spread so much panic down into the city itself. I believe that climate change, forcing the Huns away from their traditional steepe grazing areas, had something to do with it? Or one might also mention Rome's increasing dependence on Germanic contract armies to hold the frontier. Somebody said this was the next "Braveheart". I have to agree, as I thought "Braveheart" also was a lot of history on the superficial level as well. In both, I noticed, when towns were taken by the hero the camera carefully steered away from any scenes of slaughter and rapine, the better to keep him untarnished. I shouldn't have wasted my time.

While this movie may not have been historically accurate, for me it gave me an introduction to a character I have always found fascinating. And what else is the internet good for but looking up a history to find out the facts that the movie was based on.

Because it was a made-for-TV film, and USA at best, you could expect a watered-down version of the main character. I was impressed with all the acting in this movie. Surprised to find Tim Curry but happy to see Powers Boothe, who I respect as an powerful actor. He didn't really have the chance to live up to his potential in this film.

I am taking offense to some of the comments made about Gerard Butler. Yes he is a hunk. But what first drew me to him was his ACTING PRESENCE in other films like Reign of Fire and Timeline. Atilla may not be the springboard for greatness but I believe his talents will soon be showcased in more powerful films.

I viewed Atilla because I wanted to see more of Gerard Butler THE ACTOR and I was not disappointed. I also got to learn more about an historical figure who always intrigued me. Do not peg me as a star struck, fanatical female. I learned long ago that just because someone has looks does not necessarily mean they have talent. Gerard Butler belongs in a class with Jude Law and Russell Crowe.

I would recommend this film for the entertainment value it is and if you want to learn more about Atilla, go to the internet historical sites and get your fill.

There was just too much left out or made up on this one. The acting was fairly descent given the stunted script, but history went right out the window. Example: When the King died, Attila allowed his brother to rule for 13 years, before he came to power. You need drama, agreed, tension, absolutely, but there's an old adage that goes, 'Truth is stranger than fiction.' It seems they couldn't decide how much of a hero or villain to portray the main character as in the show. I never really cared about Attila and his personal problems but rather was more interested in the doings of the diabolical Roman. They should have called it 'Flavius' since he had all the good lines and was portrayed by an aggressive Powers Boothe. He took over every scene. I liked Reg Rogers as the quirky Emperor Valentinian as well. Typically, the battle scenes depicting the Roman army devolved into a massive one on one brawl, rather than the disciplined tactics that gave Rome their empire. I was not pleased at the end of the four hours - they killed you with commercials - and regretted the time wasted.