Review of Attila

Attila (2001)
1/10
Terrible! It is not a historical drama!
17 September 2001
Over the past few years I ask myself a question who produces and directs movies like that which pretend to be serious historical epics, but rather remind Batman and Robyn type of thing. There are so many mistakes in this movie that it will take me a few days to list all of them. Just a few:

The story starts in 400 AD and ends with Atilla's death in circa 454 AD. In the movie Atilla visits Rome, which he never did and no mention whatsoever of Gothic invasion of Alarich and fall of Rome in 410 AD. Roman army (and public too!) pictured in costumes of say 100 AD (which still would be wrong). In all Hollywood movies with Roman theme they make the same mistake over and over again by showing helmets with fethers, rectangular shields, etc. All this was completely out of use in Roman army by about 200AD and by 400AD Roman army consisted mostly of barbarian hired soldiers and scale armour with round shields (with a lot of christian motives on it) were largely in use. To show Roman army as they did in the movie is like showing US Army in WW11 in Revolutionary War uniforms. Decisive battle shown in the movie with 200-300 hundred extras was perhaps the greatest battle in the ancient times where by some accounts over 500,000 warriors took part. Roman side was represented not only by legions and Goths, but also but Allans and other tribes friendly to Rome. Atilla and Hunnes were most definetely asian in origin, not picture-like Caucasian as they shown. etc, etc, etc. Anyway, if you just want to relax with a few beers and watch guys with the swords chasing each other, then this movie is OK. If you are after a serious historical drama - don't waste your time watching it.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed