Customer Reviews

Attila [VHS]

5 star:		(76)
4 star:		(42)
3 star:		(21)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Here is a wonderful movie that mixes fact & fiction, sometimes telling factual events in a fictional way. All in all, however, it is a film that is well done & well worth viewing.

It is a fact that Attila did set foot inside the walls of Rome as a guest. However, it is false that he was the guest of Flavius Aetius while both were grown men. As a matter of fact, as a boy the two were "exchanged." Atilla lived in Rome while Flavius Aetius lived amongst the Huns. It was then that Attila swore that he would return one day not as a guest of Rome, but as its conquerer.

It is dubious that Attila obtained a liking for the hot baths of Rome during his youthful sojourn in the city. By all accounts of the period historians, the king of the Huns lived a very simple and Spartan existence, despite the excesses of his officers and his extravagant wealth. Gerard Butler also portrays a bit more of a debonair and "GQ looking" Atilla than I ever imagined the historical Atilla. However, that is forgivable. After all, this is Hollywood, right?

It is a fact that Valentian III personally murdered Aetius (bad idea) in 454 A.D. As someone supposedly told Valentian, "With your left hand, you have cut off your right hand." Also, the Romans did sign a treaty with the Visigothic king Theoderic I to aid in fighting the Huns. This was a reversal from earlier times when the Romans and Huns ganged up on the Visigoths. This is recounted accurately in the film.

All in all, this was an extremely good effort. It is very hard to display the dwindling years of an empire's hegemony in 3 short hours. This movie does an excellent job with the material at its disposal. The battle scenes are fairly well done, and they even pull off a passable battle of the Catalaunian Plains in the climactic sequence. However, the armies are a bit undersized; it quickly becomes evident that the film's budget did not have the resources for an extensive use of extras. But, the battle scenes are well choreographed & do show off the "tortiose" formation of the Legions.

After the death of Attila, Rome held on to her supremacy for a few more decades before finally seeing her empire fade into the darkness. Rome was one of the greatest and most long-lasting empires the world has ever seen. It was people like Atilla and Shapur who helped push it over the precipice. As such, Atilla became one of the most feared, hated and respected men in all of history. Herein lies his story.

USA network blurbs state Men Followed. Women Worshipped. Rome Trembled.

And Audiences Giggle.

Cross Lord of the Rings with a bodice-ripper romance and mix in a little Gladiator and you have this two-part movie starring hunky Scot Gerard Butler as the marauding king of the Scythian hordes known as the Huns. The Romans called him the Scourge of God, and the real Attila brought Europe to its knees, but Attila in this movie is played by Butler as a tormented man with a sexy overbite and some family dysfunction. There is intrigue and bloodwash aplenty. The Huns are depicted as a rather Celtic, not Asian, tribe, complete with wood sprite who delivers prophecies to Attila, King-Arthur style. These involve a gaining ownership of a sword, with which one rules the world. Okaaaay....

Decent, albeit comic, performances are given as Romans by Tim Curry and some other guy as emperor of Rome about this time frame (the year 452 or thereabouts). Powers Boothe is Roman General Flavius Aetius who alternately conspires with and against Attila. The emperor's sister, a hot-looking Roman princess in a corsety-type thing I am pretty sure did not exist in that timeframe, seduces Attila in a bath, even though he's supposed to be in love with the red haired woman his tribe captured from a village. Men never change. Alice Krige as the emperor's mother is much prettier here than she was as the Borg Queen in Star Trek but she's bitchy and conspires against everybody, even her own children.

Gerard Butler makes a sexy Attila, and he can invade my village anytime. However, he's Scottish, and seems to be affecting some kind of weird accent here, where syllables fall out of his mouth in an oddly non-commanding warrior way. Fearsome Attila gets his comeuppance on his wedding night, all right, but not in the historically accurate way. But USA's way is much more romantic and candle-lit. Complete with mighty Attila wearing a diaper configuration.

Alas, history lovers will find no great interest here. However, if you are in the mood for swashbuckling in the Braveheart mode and eye-candy in the form of Mr. Butler, this is the movie for you!

Attila attempts to portray the struggle of two men and two cultures between 433 and 453 AD. On the one hand, Attila the Hun is depicted in a fairly favorable light as a Barbarian warlord bent upon raising his steppe-dwelling people up from poverty to world domination. General Flavius Aetius, wonderfully acted by Powers Boothe, is depicted as the "last of the Romans," intent upon frustrating Attila's conquests and thereby preserving the tottering Roman Empire. Thus, the stage is set for a great mano-i-mano battle between the haves and the have-nots of the world. As history, the film gets the essential elements correct: Attilla and Aetius did exist and do most of the things depicted. The film is also rich in the tensions evident in a decaying Roman empire and a seething mass of Barbarians awaiting the final death throes. However, the film also abbreviates and alters a great many of the particulars of this classic late-empire struggle.

Aetitius was in fact something of a barbarian himself. Although the film depicts him as imprisoned by the conniving regent, the mother of the Emporer Valentinian III, Aetitius in fact spent three years (430-433 AD) hiding out with the Huns after an unsuccessful power struggle. There were virtually no "Roman" troops left for Aetitius to command and he relied heavily on Huns and Goths to fill out his ranks. The film's depiction of Roman troops in 1st Century AD uniforms and equipment is erroneous. Attila's troops are also depicted as ethnic Europeans when in fact, they were of central Asian origin. The more bizarre but factual Hun traits, such as ritual mutilation of their faces to make themselves seem more fearsome, are not shown. The final Battle of Chalons is not represented accurately at all, but it still interesting. Many such aspects of this film will be annoying to historians for lacking in veracity.

In fact, it is rather surprising to see such a favorable impression of the Huns. Personally, I was cheering when Attila drinks poison at the end, because he was one of the most evil and dangerous men in history. Attila's entire legacy consists of devastation, arson, looting and murder. He and his Huns were only capable of destruction, not creation, as this film suggests. Had he been more successful, Christianity might have been destroyed in infancy.

Unlike the flashier film Gladiator, Attila has much more character depth and plot outline. The twenty-year struggle of Attila versus Aetitius is far more interesting than a simple revenge movie. While many small details are incorrect, the film does get the major issues correct. There are not many films about the later years of the Roman Empire, but this film is probably one of the best.

If you want a history lesson, go to the library. If you want to to be entertained, watch this movie. It was well-acted, beautifully photographed and nicely scored. Not historically accurate, but it may well inspire research into what was an interesting period.

It doesn't matter if the real Attila the Hun was short, swarthy and flat-nosed in life, Gerard Butler played him with passion, and that's what made a 3-hour show seem brief. Powers Boothe and Alice Kriege were their nasty best. The witch character was a lot of fun as well.

All in all, Attila is a thoroughly entertaining work.

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.

If anyone who has eyes to see, views Gerard Butler in the movie Attila and does not find Gerard Butler a mouth watering hunk; those eyes that viewed that movie are probably attached to two antennas affixed to the tail end of some alien being from out of space.
The movie Attila is very entertaining, the story is good and Gerard Butler is riveting. The entire cast played their part like it was theirs to own. You will want that DVD as I do, as you will find that you have a great need to view Gerard Butler again and again.
Gerard Butler in the bath, fighting, courting, talking, his eyes, his lips, his body, his accent and the way his mouth moves to voice words. He seems to be a great kisser too. Why does a man have to look so good? Hmm - angels see Gerard Butler and weep. I am no angel therefore I see Gerard Butler and I salivate.
I had a riotous laugh writing this, I do hope you laughed reading it.
But seriously, add Attila to your library, in Gerard Butler's Irish drawl, `you won't regre-e-et it'. I must warn you though, do be careful. Gerard Butler is an addictive entertainer. You may end up having a copious relationship with your DVD player, making it a must that you buy other movies starring Gerard Butler.

ATTILA is a must see for anyone who appreciates the great epics of by-gone years! My purchase of the USA Original movie ATTILA (2001) was because Gerard Butler portrayed the main character. I've come to know this man's ability as an actor on whom I rely to perform brilliantly. His rendering of the historical "Attila" was absolutely that plus more! Let me also add dazzling and radiant. "Attila" literally jumps from the screen. The first scene of "Attila" galloping across a large steppe on horseback is magnificent! The writer begins the scene with him as a youngster who as the frames continue grows into the splendid specimen of manhood, "Attila." Regardless of Mr. Butler's captivating green eyes, the main character is "Attila the Hun" whom I saw! Gerard Butler did NOT appear ONCE in this movie! To me THAT is the mark of a GREAT ACTOR! You BECOME the character! Acting opposite him as the Roman "General Aetius" is another actor of great repute, Powers Boothe. It's a rare pleasure to feel the "air being sliced" in the performance between two fine actors as their characters square off against each other as friends as well as enemies! "Attila's" introduction to the city of Rome is all that the spectacle an entrance of two great leaders being hailed and adored by the citizens should be.

Director Dick Lowry follows "Attila" with superb and fastidious detail from his days as a young warrior in Europe (circa mid 400's AD) through his rapid rise to power. Robert Cochran's script could have been translated to the big screen but I was glad that it had three hours rather than two to expand the story; not take away from it. The extra time gives more ability for all of the characters to interact. Tommy Flanagan (BRAVEHEART) is another actor who I look for in films. In ATTILA, he portrays "Attila's" older brother "Bleda." Their well orchestrated duel to the death from horseback over who shall rule the Hun Empire after "King Rua's" demise (Steven Berkoff) will in itself keep the viewer not only riveted to the set but re-running the scene over again and again!

ATTILA is historically sound, well acted with performances also given by actors Tim Curry as "Theodosius," Simmone Jade MacKinnon as "N'Kara" and Reg Rogers as "Valentinian." USA Network's ATTILA deserves a five star rating!

Janet Polk Molyneaux of Charlotte, North Carolina

A movie of overall splendour with a world class cast, where history, romance and thrilling battle scenes unfold before your eyes. The glory of Rome in her downward spiral takes on new meaning when Attila, played by Gerard Butler, in what I believe to be one of his best performances, comes on the scene. A great cast, each and every one bringing to life this masterful epic of rich history along with the pomp and ceremony of two entirely different cultures and civilizations. As a fairly new and up and coming great actor Mr. Butler more than held his own with many well known movie names. I predict great things to come for this young man and hope he gets the chance to play more epic character roles. With his great acting abilities he certainly brings this type of role to life with his dedication to becoming one with the character he takes on. A truly great movie, one I hope will become a classic, and well worth collecting and viewing. Even if you view history as boring stuff out of dull, dusty history books - this will bring an entirely different meaning to "history" at it's best. The special features is well worth a special mention as a must see addition to behind the scenes production, wonderful photography, hundreds of extras, including young, newly trained Asian army personell who took on the roles of Roman soldiers. I can't rate this DVD highly enough; of course, I love history and epic movies so maybe a little biased!

Having read many review on how inaccurate this film were, I decided that I'l have a go myself anyway. Being a fervent student of classical civilisation myself, I thought - that wasn't a bad film at all. I agreed that the film is not 100% accurate but not to the point that Attila had conquered the Roman Empire. The film did well to put all historical element together and added some "spice" that would make the film interesting to the general audience.

We all knew that Attila is not a handsome hunk, But try to put yourself in the director and producer perspective. Could you really find an actor of Attila description in the film industry. No, you couldn't even if you wanted to. I you want one you would have to import directly from Mongolia, and I doulbt that the Attila would speak at all during the entire film. Also, it is not economically viable to use any person as such, the film just won't sale. The film-makers are not trying to make a documentary. They are making films, and film suppost to by enjoy as novel, not histoy book.

I doulbt that the legend of King Arthur and his Knights as we know is historically accurate. Nor wizard do play quiddich!! The film "King Arthur" (2004), which base more along the line of historical account, is no better than any other "historical inaccurate" film before it. At the end of the film, my sister who have no interest whatsoever in ancient history asked me for some historical background and asked to borrow some book on the subject of Attila and the Roman Empire. I felt that the film-makers could say "mission accomplished".

Anyone who is a Gerard Butler fan must see and own this film. He is simply superb and it is a fast-paced action film. When this was released on A&E, I was already enthralled by Phantom of the Opera (POTO), and didn't realize Mr. Butler was in this movie. I decided not to watch it on tv because I figured it would be violent and bloody. Well, it is pretty violent, but it depicts a violent time in world history. And with Butler in it, the decision was made. I ordered the DVD and it is wonderful. Lots of action, sweeping vistas, battles and political intrigue. I think that with the advent of POTO, people in the US will be clamoring for more of Gerard Butler. When you look at both these films -- POTO and Attila -- you see the range of which Butler is capable.
He does not disappoint and the film is exciting and entertaining.
As I said, quite a lot of violence in battles and personal attacks and a good deal of sexual nuance but both are within plot lines and not gratuitous.