I was very happy with the BBC's adaption of Attila the Hun they researched him and consulted the historians before making it to make sure it was as accurate account the special affects where not up to a large Hollywood movie but then again this was more a historical documentary drama. If you like history and would like to know more about Attila i would recommend you watch this doc/drama as i knew very little before the program but my knowledge after was quite different as most people know the name but not the real man and his achievements which to say happened 1500 years ago shows the power of his name after all this time.
8 Reviews
barbarian bandit
SnoopyStyle25 October 2016
It's 440 A.D. A weaken Roman empire is split in two. In central Europe, brothers Attila and Bleda are the new rulers after the death of King Ruga. The Western Roman Emperor bribes the brothers with gold and political prisoners. The brothers set their vast army from various races to loot the Eastern Empire with new siege weapons. After agreeing to a new treaty, the Huns return back across the Danube. Bleda is killed and Attila as sole ruler goes back to face the entire Eastern army. After a tough victory, Attila marches all the way to the walls of Constantinople where the Eastern Romans plan an assassination attempt. With the East bled dry, Attila heads west with an army of 35 thousand against Roman general Flavius Aëtius.
The story may be too much to fit into fifty minutes. This could be an epic TV series. It spans too many years. This is also notable for newcomer director Gareth Edwards. In the end, Attila is portrayed as nothing more than a barbarian bandit who is only driven by gold and pillage. The action and CGI fills a large part of the episode.
The story may be too much to fit into fifty minutes. This could be an epic TV series. It spans too many years. This is also notable for newcomer director Gareth Edwards. In the end, Attila is portrayed as nothing more than a barbarian bandit who is only driven by gold and pillage. The action and CGI fills a large part of the episode.
rattling the visual effects community
zoecarbon2 July 2008
The story behind the making of Attila is rattling the visual effects community. The director Gareth Edward, not only did a fantastic job directing the film, but also accomplished all of the 250 HD visual effects shots in five months all by himself!
He was so highly regarded that he was asked to teach an effects class at fxPhd.com this last term which saw streams of vfx professionals signing up and received massive out-pouring of complements for the course.
the film is a must see for anyone interested in visual effects and of course the history of Attila the Hun.
For more information on his incredible feat see this article: http://www.fxguide.com/article463.html
He was so highly regarded that he was asked to teach an effects class at fxPhd.com this last term which saw streams of vfx professionals signing up and received massive out-pouring of complements for the course.
the film is a must see for anyone interested in visual effects and of course the history of Attila the Hun.
For more information on his incredible feat see this article: http://www.fxguide.com/article463.html
King of Hun
ms_gambler2 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
It's a beautiful movie, i liked it very... very much.
Attila, King of the Huns... he is my favorite Hero.
Some fact about him, even if you don't know: Although he reigned almost 20 years as king of the Huns, the image of Attila in history and in the popular imagination is based upon two aggressive military campaigns in the last two years of his life which threatened to dramatically redirect the development of Western Europe.
Attila and his brother succeeded their uncle as leaders of the Huns in 434, with Attila in the junior role until his brother's death (perhaps at Attila's hand) 12 years later. The Hun kingdom was centered in modern-day Hungary. Attila embarked immediately upon a series of wars extending Hun rule from the Rhine across the north of the Black Sea as far as the Caspian Sea. From that base he soon began a long series of saber-rattling negotiations with the capitals of the Roman Empire at Constantinople in the East and Ravenna in the West.
Attila, King of the Huns... he is my favorite Hero.
Some fact about him, even if you don't know: Although he reigned almost 20 years as king of the Huns, the image of Attila in history and in the popular imagination is based upon two aggressive military campaigns in the last two years of his life which threatened to dramatically redirect the development of Western Europe.
Attila and his brother succeeded their uncle as leaders of the Huns in 434, with Attila in the junior role until his brother's death (perhaps at Attila's hand) 12 years later. The Hun kingdom was centered in modern-day Hungary. Attila embarked immediately upon a series of wars extending Hun rule from the Rhine across the north of the Black Sea as far as the Caspian Sea. From that base he soon began a long series of saber-rattling negotiations with the capitals of the Roman Empire at Constantinople in the East and Ravenna in the West.
Poor effort, seriously lacking in historical accuracy
phenomynouss2 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Coming from a DVD set of many of these sorts of mini-movies, this one is surprisingly one of the weaker, though the one on Spartacus was pretty atrocious as well.
Firstly, CRATEROS AND AGRIPPA! The guy who played Krateros in "Alexander", Rory McCann plays Attila, and Allen Leech, who played Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, plays Edeco, the main character.
There's little to no evidence as to what Attila and the Huns looked like or where they were from. The only source of Attila's appearance marks him as vaguely Asiatic, "Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin" Rory is tall as hell, though he is broad-chested. His beard is thick, and he has big big eyes and a thick Scottish accent. He is also the antithesis of the "Scourge of God" character that Attila has been noted as historically. Not a bumbling, rabid barbarian, but a cunning, calculating, highly political leader.
Here, he is thoroughly unremarkable. He seems like a generic Hollywood-style leader who, after the fact, the writers remembered is supposed to be a feared figure, and so superficially added instances or dialogue showing him as brutal and vicious. He's less like Attila and more like a greedy Robin Hood.
The filmmakers also seem to have completely forgotten that the Huns are essentially cavalry soldiers. They're said to be on horseback all the time, urinate on horseback, eat on horseback, fight on horseback and so on.
The Huns are NEVER on horseback in this ENTIRE film except for the opening sequence involving a diplomatic meeting.
The film looks fine and is acted well enough, but it's very badly executed, poor in historical accuracy, and ultimately, a bore.
Firstly, CRATEROS AND AGRIPPA! The guy who played Krateros in "Alexander", Rory McCann plays Attila, and Allen Leech, who played Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, plays Edeco, the main character.
There's little to no evidence as to what Attila and the Huns looked like or where they were from. The only source of Attila's appearance marks him as vaguely Asiatic, "Short of stature, with a broad chest and a large head; his eyes were small, his beard thin and sprinkled with grey; and he had a flat nose and tanned skin, showing evidence of his origin" Rory is tall as hell, though he is broad-chested. His beard is thick, and he has big big eyes and a thick Scottish accent. He is also the antithesis of the "Scourge of God" character that Attila has been noted as historically. Not a bumbling, rabid barbarian, but a cunning, calculating, highly political leader.
Here, he is thoroughly unremarkable. He seems like a generic Hollywood-style leader who, after the fact, the writers remembered is supposed to be a feared figure, and so superficially added instances or dialogue showing him as brutal and vicious. He's less like Attila and more like a greedy Robin Hood.
The filmmakers also seem to have completely forgotten that the Huns are essentially cavalry soldiers. They're said to be on horseback all the time, urinate on horseback, eat on horseback, fight on horseback and so on.
The Huns are NEVER on horseback in this ENTIRE film except for the opening sequence involving a diplomatic meeting.
The film looks fine and is acted well enough, but it's very badly executed, poor in historical accuracy, and ultimately, a bore.
They were after the gold as they could not afford horses
b-i10 August 2010
It is interesting to see how BBC tried to overcome the Western conception of a barbarian Attila and his savage Huns.
Apart from several over-acted parts picturing a hot-tempered Attila, the film is quite enjoyable. Taken into account that it is a documentary, you will not see huge battle-scenes as you would do in a feature film. And this is exactly where the film loses its track. Portraying the Huns' army in battles as foot-soldiers running amok is clearly a failed attempt at being historically accurate, despite BBC's claims.
They keep to the time-line, then all of a sudden stop at Catalaunum, stating Attila's defeat. Attila did not fail, though, but went on to conquer until "he would bring Rome to its knees" (to quote the narrative at the very beginning). He turned back at the city of Rome, following a heavenly sign at his meeting with the Pope. Probably, BBC just could not fit that picture into their illustration of a mindless barbaric lust for gold.
Another fact that leaves the viewer in doubt about the claimed historical authenticity is the total confusion of archaic geographical names with present-day ones: an anachronism that would give you an instant fail at any history test.
To sum up, this re-enactment is still a useful aid for students to look for historical inaccuracies.
Apart from several over-acted parts picturing a hot-tempered Attila, the film is quite enjoyable. Taken into account that it is a documentary, you will not see huge battle-scenes as you would do in a feature film. And this is exactly where the film loses its track. Portraying the Huns' army in battles as foot-soldiers running amok is clearly a failed attempt at being historically accurate, despite BBC's claims.
They keep to the time-line, then all of a sudden stop at Catalaunum, stating Attila's defeat. Attila did not fail, though, but went on to conquer until "he would bring Rome to its knees" (to quote the narrative at the very beginning). He turned back at the city of Rome, following a heavenly sign at his meeting with the Pope. Probably, BBC just could not fit that picture into their illustration of a mindless barbaric lust for gold.
Another fact that leaves the viewer in doubt about the claimed historical authenticity is the total confusion of archaic geographical names with present-day ones: an anachronism that would give you an instant fail at any history test.
To sum up, this re-enactment is still a useful aid for students to look for historical inaccuracies.
A rare breed; works on both a VFX level and a story level.
Schmuck-422 August 2009
Many of my fellow VFX nerds would appraise "Heroes and Villains: Attila the Hun" on the basis of its success in terms of bedroom-level special effects. But "Attila" goes one better -- its story is truly engrossing and well-directed, and the quick-turnaround visual effects (about 1.6 shots per day, if the statistics are to be believed) are more than adequate to serve the narrative.
This, then, is the triumph of its director, Gareth Edwards. Here is a man who knows not only how visual effects work, but who also knows how to direct a compelling narrative. In both realms, there are shortcuts to be taken, but there are also ground rules to be observed; Edwards observes the latter element of both.
In doing so he succeeds in making a quality piece of narrative/documentary television which leaves the rest of us nerds in his dust.
This, then, is the triumph of its director, Gareth Edwards. Here is a man who knows not only how visual effects work, but who also knows how to direct a compelling narrative. In both realms, there are shortcuts to be taken, but there are also ground rules to be observed; Edwards observes the latter element of both.
In doing so he succeeds in making a quality piece of narrative/documentary television which leaves the rest of us nerds in his dust.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
