Review of Hannibal

Hannibal (1959)
2/10
Non-History Supplemented by Poor Acting
8 May 2005
Although touted as a Grade-B epic, such a high rating is dubious. The acting is overwrought and the plot and narrative devices are poor. The most distinguishing characteristic of this film is the cinematography -- which is simply horrendous. Over and over, there are shots of the Carthaginian Army marching somewhere -- the problem is that the march order is more akin to a company of skirmishers than it is to an army of thousands on the march. Scenes are often so dark as to be indistinguishable, and battles look like company exercises.

The Roman defeat at Cannae was the worst loss suffered by any Western army in a single day in history. Historically, the four/eight legions(opinions vary to whether double legions were present) were surrounded and destroyed in place, often because the Romans were so compressed in space that they could not effectively engage. Yet, the movie battle shows a rather open battle with large areas of maneuverability.

Much is made of Hannibal's elephants, but one must understand that only eighteen of the beasts survived the crossing of the Alps. In effect, they were the Panzers of the ancient world -- and much more effective as a terror weapon threat than an actual force multiplier.

The sub-plot of a love interest is pure Hollywood Italia -- no basis in reality. And although Fabius Cunctator was a historical figure whose "Fabian tactics" were proved correct, the movie concludes before any mention of Scipio Africanus who eventually defeated Hannibal at Zama.
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed