Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #40362 in DVD
• Released on: 2002-03-04
• Rating: Suitable for 15 years and over
• Aspect ratio: 1.85:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Format: PAL
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: English, German, French, Dutch
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 177 minutes

Amazon.co.uk Review
Straight out of the American television movie school of historical thought, Attila the Hun is a glossy, at times long and often ridiculous re-telling of one of the great stories of Ancient Rome. How much of it is historically accurate is debatable--much of the action is ludicrously far fetched--and the image that most of us have of Attila is quite different to the bare-chested, longhaired reject from an 80s soft rock band that is presented here.

The film does have its own slightly warped charm, though. The storyline is surprisingly complex, involving plots and counter plots, and the movie does exhibit a sense of epic somewhat in the vein of Gladiator, but is sadly lacking the budget, style or talent. The acting is awful (as befits anything that stars Steven Berkoff) and reduces the political machinations of Rome to little more than Dynasty in togas. Gerrard Butler is a fine actor--as he proved in the recent TV drama The Jury--but is woeful here, delivering his lines in a bizarre trans-Atlantic Scottish accent. At three hours it's way too long, too. There does remain something strangely compelling about Atilla the Hun, though you'll find more reliable facts about Roman history in an Asterix book. --Phil Udell

Customer Reviews

Excellent escapism!
When we sit down to watch a video we often wish to be taken a way from out hum drum lives. Attila does this. Gerard Butler is superb in his role as Atilla.Who cares what he should look like he is exactly what he needs to be - A HERO,with exceptional good looks! The story is very good, if you want historical facts then buy a school 'History' tape if you wish to be entertained and escape for several hours from work and life then watch this video. If only to wish Gerard was saying, 'Goodnight' to you!

The finctional hun...
Attila the Hun is a shadowy character in history. This is primarily due to the fact that the Huns and other peoples allied with and subject to them left little by way of written documentation. Most of what we know comes through Roman Imperial sources; even the legends that originated beyond the borders of the Eastern and Western Imperial lands were transcribed (and no doubt modified in the process) by the writers to suit their world view, if not particular political intentions.

Much of the legendary Attila has been re-worked over time so that many nations in Europe and Asia have claimed at one time or another either kinship with or victory over or subjugation to Attila. Some of these legends show forth in the movie, and others do not. This movie does not get high marks for historical accuracy. The Roman political scene is not as it is described; save for a few of the names that have been preserved, few of the events and intrigues presented in the film have any historical accuracy. Unlike films that play fast and loose with history while maintaining some integrity with the subject (notable examples include Elizabeth, I Claudius, and Pearl Harbor), this movie is, apart from the most general of frameworks of characterization, a work of fiction.

The primary historical argument I would have (beyond the fictional political intrigues which provided much of the plot) was the nearly-complete absence of the early church and its influence. This was a period in which the old Roman order was failing, both in the East and West, and the power of bishops, including Leo, bishop (pope) of Rome, was on the rise. There is virtually no mention of the church at all, and the power brokers of the church are absent - history records that, often as not, it was the bishop of the cities being attacked that negotiated peace or terms or surrender, and not the imperial diplomatic corps. Leo himself is credited with keeping Attila from attacking Rome. One would never gather this from the film. Of course, these scenes are not given to great drama. However, earlier films on Attila have included something of these scenes.

Likewise, we do not know that Attila had a fascination with red-haired women (a key element in the film), or that he was murdered after his wedding by a disgruntled-captive-become-queen. These are speculation, but there are legendary sources that could lend support. I can forgive a movie like 'Gladiator', which does not purport to be based on actual events more than I can overlook such issues in a movie designed to present an actual historical figure. Attila's legendary death is recorded by various sources in differing ways - some by slaves, some by freeborn, some by a wife revenging herself, some by natural causes, some by angels bent on protecting the young, developing Christendom. Most likely he was murdered, as many Hun and other tribal leaders were, but as the records are sketchy at best, and his body laid to rest in an unknown place, it is unlikely we shall ever know definitely.

These criticisms aside, the movie is entertaining. Gerard Butler, a newcomer Scotsman, does a serviceable job as Attila (and, as a note of historicity, it is appropriate that a Celt should play this role, as an enemy of Rome). He has played smaller roles in films such as 'Mrs. Brown' and 'One More Kiss', but this is his first major role.

A few mentions should be given to Powers Boothe (who plays the Roman general Flavius Aetius) and Alice Krige (who plays the mother of the Western emperor Valentian), who give powerful performances, albeit with stilted scripts and direction. They perform their roles well. Sian Phillips (from 'I Claudius' fame, among others) is lost potential in her small cameo at the beginning, and Tim Curry is under-utilised as the Eastern Emperor Theodosius. Mention should also be made of Andrew Pleavin, as the honourable and loyal general to Attila, Orestes (ironically, again, this shining character is based upon what one historian calls 'the most unprincipled turn-coat in history'). His role is brief but memorable.

The battle scenes are fair, although it is apparent that low budgets caused many corners to be cut, both for numbers (yes, we have been spoiled by the Cecil B. DeMille epic styles) and for equipment/settings. The same is true for the overall sets. (Apparently Rome only had one street and three buildings.) In setting up the contrast between Roman opulence and barbarian simplicity, the sets were effective. However, there was insufficient attention to detail to give it believability.

Alas, there is not much more to say. My friends and I have often used the phrase 'USA movie' to denote that type of film that is not bad, but not really great, that is entertaining to a degree, but not inspiring. A fairly generic film. The music was passing fair, but far from memorable. The overall direction and cinematography was competent but generic. This is a film worth watching, but only once, and then followed by an intensive course of reading to see what the world was really like.

If there is one great advantage of the film, it is that it might inspire people to learn more about Attila and the Roman Empire during the period of its decline.

The fictional Hun
Attila the Hun is a shadowy character in history. This is primarily due to the fact that the Huns and other peoples allied with and subject to them left little by way of written documentation. Most of what we know comes through Roman Imperial sources; even the legends that originated beyond the borders of the Eastern and Western Imperial lands were transcribed (and no doubt modified in the process) by the writers to suit their world view, if not particular political intentions.

Much of the legendary Attila has been re-worked over time so that many nations in Europe and Asia have claimed at one time or another either kinship with or victory over or subjugation to Attila. Some of these legends show forth in the movie, and others do not. This movie does not get high marks for historical accuracy. The Roman political scene is not as it is described; save for a few of the names that have been preserved, few of the events and intrigues presented in the film have any historical accuracy. Unlike films that play fast and loose with history while maintaining some integrity with the subject (notable examples include Elizabeth, I Claudius, and Pearl Harbor), this movie is, apart from the most general of frameworks of characterization, a work of fiction.

The primary historical argument I would have (beyond the fictional political intrigues which provided much of the plot) was the nearly-complete absence of the early church and its influence. This was a period in which the old Roman order was failing, both in the East and West, and the power of bishops, including Leo, bishop (pope) of Rome, was on the rise. There is virtually no mention of the church at all, and the power brokers of the church are absent - history records that, often as not, it was the bishop of the cities being attacked that negotiated peace or terms or surrender, and not the imperial diplomatic corps. Leo himself is credited with keeping Attila from attacking Rome. One would never gather this from the film. Of course, these scenes are not given to great drama. However, earlier films on Attila have included something of these scenes.

Likewise, we do not know that Attila had a fascination with red-haired women (a key element in the film), or that he was murdered after his wedding by a disgruntled-captive-become-queen. These are speculation, but there are legendary sources that could lend support. I can forgive a movie like 'Gladiator', which does not purport to be based on actual events more than I can overlook such issues in a movie designed to present an actual historical figure. Attila's legendary death is recorded by various sources in differing ways - some by slaves, some by freeborn, some by a wife revenging herself, some by natural causes, some by angels bent on protecting the young, developing Christendom. Most likely he was murdered, as many Hun and other tribal leaders were, but as the records are sketchy at best, and his body laid to rest in an unknown place, it is unlikely we shall ever know definitely.

These criticisms aside, the movie is entertaining. Gerard Butler, a newcomer Scotsman, does a serviceable job as Attila (and, as a note of historicity, it is appropriate that a Celt should play this role, as an enemy of Rome). He has played smaller roles in films such as 'Mrs. Brown' and 'One More Kiss', but this is his first major role.

A few mentions should be given to Powers Boothe (who plays the Roman general Flavius Aetius) and Alice Krige (who plays the mother of the Western emperor Valentian), who give powerful performances, albeit with stilted scripts and direction. They perform their roles well. Sian Phillips (from 'I Claudius' fame, among others) is lost potential in her small cameo at the beginning, and Tim Curry is under-utilised as the Eastern Emperor Theodosius. Mention should also be made of Andrew Pleavin, as the honourable and loyal general to Attila, Orestes (ironically, again, this shining character is based upon what one historian calls 'the most unprincipled turn-coat in history'). His role is brief but memorable.

The battle scenes are fair, although it is apparent that low budgets caused many corners to be cut, both for numbers (yes, we have been spoiled by the Cecil B. DeMille epic styles) and for equipment/settings. The same is true for the overall sets. (Apparently Rome only had one street and three buildings.) In setting up the contrast between Roman opulence and barbarian simplicity, the sets were effective. However, there was insufficient attention to detail to give it believability.

Alas, there is not much more to say. My friends and I have often used the phrase 'USA movie' to denote that type of film that is not bad, but not really great, that is entertaining to a degree, but not inspiring. A fairly generic film. The music was passing fair, but far from memorable. The overall direction and cinematography was competent but generic. This is a film worth watching, but only once, and then followed by an intensive course of reading to see what the world was really like.

If there is one great advantage of the film, it is that it might inspire people to learn more about Attila and the Roman Empire during the period of its decline.