Attila, le Hun

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.

Admittedly, this movie may not be accurate, however it did encourage me to look up the actual history..Meanwhile, it was my first introduction to the actor Gerry Butler, for which I am very thankful..I look forward to watching other movies he makes..This movie as well as the subsequent ones, ie Phantom of the Opera, Timeline, Dear Frankie, even Dracula 2000, I think show how much this guy puts into his roles.. I feel he shows real depth to whatever character he portrays- heh- he made me sympathetic to Attila the Hun! Actually I read somewhere that they still celebrate Attila's Birthday in Hungary.. If one puts the story in a historical perspective I believe one could make an argument that our History might have been different if he had prevailed.. The Roman Catholic influence was not all roses..

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.

"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.