2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent Scope for a Docudrama, April 17, 2011
This review is from: Hannibal: Rome's Worst Nightmare [Region 2] (DVD)
I don't know why this title was never released in a UK or American edition. I'm afraid I can't tell you whether this edition is in English or Spanish or whether it is good quality or not.
This film is a BBC Docudrama produced in 2006 and starring Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir from Star Trek: DS9) as Hannibal, and no one else I know except for Ben Cross (Sarek, also from Star Trek). I have never understood the use of docudramas. If you want to make a documentary, make a documentary; if you want to make a period piece, make a period piece. Combining the two does not work. It is not as accurate as a documentary or as exciting as a drama. But the BBC was quite fond of churning them out in the middle of the decade. Within a few years they threw out at least than three of them set at least partially in ancient times:
Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire, Heroes & Villains (Released in the US as
Warriors. Was the original name too confusing?), and this one. Of them all I think that this one is the most coherent. Instead of a bunch of shorter episodes dealing with different people, it spends the whole time looking at the Carthaginian general Hannibal. No, not that Hannibal. This one doesn't eat people (that we know of). Hannibal was the man who almost took down Rome itself. He crossed the Alps and brought the fight to them culminating in one of the most decisive battles the world has ever seen. Yet the Romans survived and lived to fight another day.
So, how well does it do? Historically it gets a few things wrong and compresses some events to make them fit into an hour and a half program but is very accurate on the whole. Entertainment-wise it is also very good. Some of the dialogue is clunky and phony but it doesn't distract from the story too much. The effects seem about normal for a docudrama at first. In most scenes you can tell that there are only a few dozen men playing soldiers. The battle of Ticinus features about two dozen men on each side wailing at each other with swords. That's about what I expected from the production, and it's dull. Then it reaches Cannae and everything changes. Cannae is Hannibal's big battle, the one that would define his career. He fought a Roman army that outnumbered him and managed to not only defeat it, but obliterate it killing about 50,000 men in the course of a few hours. And this film captures it just right. I really don't know how they did it. It must be CGI because they could never have afforded that many extras, but it doesn't look like any CGI work I've ever seen. It details exactly what tactics were used to win the battle and illustrates them perfectly. I don't think I've seen a better (or more accurate) battle on-screen before, with the possible exception of Oliver Stone's
Alexander. The battle of Zama is similarly well done with some believable elephant charges. Both of them are too short unfortunately, but that's a television budget for you. They could not have done better with what they had. A superb job.
Apart from the battles, the story's quite good since it follows the facts pretty well and the facts are pretty cool. The first part (45 minutes) covers Hannibal crossing the Alps and kinda rushes through the battles of Trebia and Trasimene (Trasimene in particular is just a voiceover with stills of dead Romans). The second half contains both of the main battles and is infinitely the better for it. Hannibal's character is portrayed somewhat inconsistently. While he starts off as a living embodiment of vengeance after Cannae he starts talking about how too much blood has been spilled and becomes a bit of a whiner. While this isn't an utterly invalid view I don't think that they handled it too well. The turnabout is too sudden and it is unconvincing to hear him talk about not taking Rome because they're not barbarians. It's not really an ancient attitude and it seems to be thrown in there to make him more sympathetic.
The casting is a bit of a problem. Siddig is great as Hannibal who comes across as both fierce and brilliant, but most of the supporting cast can't keep up. I guess there aren't many British Arabic actors to choose from which is why Hannibal's brothers look nothing alike. Then again, the Roman cast isn't much better. Cross does fine as Fabius, but the guy playing Scipio is far too old for the part. He's at least in his mid-30s and it seems strange to hear people talking about how young he is to have achieved what he did. It makes sense age-wise by Zama, but that only gives him ten minutes or so at the proper age. Hannibal should be younger too of course, but his age wasn't so significant as Scipio's since Rome had to bend all their laws to give Scipio the command. And it's also strange that a man who's most defining characteristic in his sculptures is his baldness is played by a man with far too much hair for a Roman. Most odd. But I'm nitpicking now. On the whole the film is good, the story is good, the lead performances are good, and the battles are great. The narration is only occasionally present and while it's annoying it shouldn't get in the way of enjoying the film. So check it out if you get the chance, and hopefully they'll release it in Region 1 someday.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
