Attila l'unno

This was an astonishingly great series.I don't usually watch mini-series as a rule, but I caught the end of this one and then came back for more! Kudos to USA for giving us quality TV in a "reality TV" world. Everything about this was standout - acting, filming, writing, directing, everything. The attention to detail was superb and it was a gripper from the start.

Please produce this as a video for home purchase!

Finally, where is Gerard Butler and who has been hiding him. We need to hear more about him and see more of him on the big and little screen. He is not only great to look at, but one of the best actors I've seen in ages. Russell Crow - who's that?

More More More Gerry Butler.

Presented as a series this overlong epic fails to tell Attila's story, the early part is totally correct, when under King Rua he was raised and becomes a leader later, but as shown in the picture never went to Rome, he meets Falvius Aetius when he had a brief exile between the Huns, the agreement with Emperor Theodosius who has to pay a heavy tribute in gold to avoid Attila's attack at Constantinople, given enough time to rebuilding the City's walls, while Attila gathered all Huns tribes at his command and swept the Balkans and central Europe, then Rome make a deal with Theodoric to struggles against Attila at Orleans that appears on the picture, Theodoric dies on battle, and the German barbarians went back leaving Romans at Attila's hand, the movie is surrounded by mysticism over a lost sword that will prove that Attila was the chosen one, witchcraft were expose over such old legends, his death as appears on movie has two different versions, they chosen the most plausible, despite had a strong and valuable casting the production itself is of low quality, the buildings are quite fake, the battle weren't enough convincible, anyway an average production!!!

Resume:

First watch: 2009 / How many: 3 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 7

While this movie may not have been historically accurate, for me it gave me an introduction to a character I have always found fascinating. And what else is the internet good for but looking up a history to find out the facts that the movie was based on.

Because it was a made-for-TV film, and USA at best, you could expect a watered-down version of the main character. I was impressed with all the acting in this movie. Surprised to find Tim Curry but happy to see Powers Boothe, who I respect as an powerful actor. He didn't really have the chance to live up to his potential in this film.

I am taking offense to some of the comments made about Gerard Butler. Yes he is a hunk. But what first drew me to him was his ACTING PRESENCE in other films like Reign of Fire and Timeline. Atilla may not be the springboard for greatness but I believe his talents will soon be showcased in more powerful films.

I viewed Atilla because I wanted to see more of Gerard Butler THE ACTOR and I was not disappointed. I also got to learn more about an historical figure who always intrigued me. Do not peg me as a star struck, fanatical female. I learned long ago that just because someone has looks does not necessarily mean they have talent. Gerard Butler belongs in a class with Jude Law and Russell Crowe.

I would recommend this film for the entertainment value it is and if you want to learn more about Atilla, go to the internet historical sites and get your fill.

There was just too much left out or made up on this one. The acting was fairly descent given the stunted script, but history went right out the window. Example: When the King died, Attila allowed his brother to rule for 13 years, before he came to power. You need drama, agreed, tension, absolutely, but there's an old adage that goes, 'Truth is stranger than fiction.' It seems they couldn't decide how much of a hero or villain to portray the main character as in the show. I never really cared about Attila and his personal problems but rather was more interested in the doings of the diabolical Roman. They should have called it 'Flavius' since he had all the good lines and was portrayed by an aggressive Powers Boothe. He took over every scene. I liked Reg Rogers as the quirky Emperor Valentinian as well. Typically, the battle scenes depicting the Roman army devolved into a massive one on one brawl, rather than the disciplined tactics that gave Rome their empire. I was not pleased at the end of the four hours - they killed you with commercials - and regretted the time wasted.

I hate to disagree with the prior analysises, but this movie told me next to nothing about Attila that I didn't know before. I knew that he slew his brother to gain the throne; I knew that he died on his wedding night. But what I wanted to know is why, when Rome had managed to repel barbarian attack after barbarian attack, these barbarians should suddenly show up, make so much of an inroad and spread so much panic down into the city itself. I believe that climate change, forcing the Huns away from their traditional steepe grazing areas, had something to do with it? Or one might also mention Rome's increasing dependence on Germanic contract armies to hold the frontier. Somebody said this was the next "Braveheart". I have to agree, as I thought "Braveheart" also was a lot of history on the superficial level as well. In both, I noticed, when towns were taken by the hero the camera carefully steered away from any scenes of slaughter and rapine, the better to keep him untarnished. I shouldn't have wasted my time.