Wuchak Released to TV in 2001 and directed by Dick Lowry, "Attila" is a historical epic taking place during the waning days of the Roman Empire in the first half of the 5th century where a barbarian named Attila (Gerard Butler) assumes Hun leadership and unites the divided clans. Attila seeks to form an empire and views Rome, under the incompetent leadership of Caesar Valentinian (Reg Rogers), ripe for Conquest. To quell a Hun invasion, ambitious General Flavius Aetius (Powers Boothe) attempts to form an alliance with Attila against their mutual enemy, Visigoth King Theodoric (Liam Cunningham). But the strategy backfires and there must be a showdown between the three armies. Pauline Lynch and Tommy Flanagan stand out as Attila's soothsayer and rivalrous brother respectively. Kirsty Mitchell and Alice Krige are likewise on hand as Valentinian's sister and mother while Simmone Mackinnon shines as Attila's love interest in an interesting dual role. Kate Steavenson-Payne plays Aetius' daughter and Tim Curry the ruler of the Eastern Empire, Theodosius. I wasn't expecting much from "Attila," especially after seeing the contemporaneous TV epic "Druids," which is astonishingly amateurish (albeit worthwhile in a so-bad-it's-good way), but I was pleasantly surprised. Despite its TV-budget limitations, "Attila" is one of the greatest sword & sandal flicks I've ever seen. "Braveheart"? "Gladiator"? These pale in comparison. No kidding. Not in the realm of technical quality, since those movies cost way more to make, but in the realm of quality characters and compelling story. Sure, there's a comic book tone to the proceedings, but the story moves briskly, never getting bogged down, and the complications of the events are made palatable. The cinematography, costumes, score and locations are notable, although some of the Roman sets are dubious. Butler makes for a worthy protagonist even though it is said that the barrel-chested Attila was short of stature with half-Asian features (Gerard is 6'2" and Scottish). There are several historical inaccuracies, but no more so than the two hailed movies noted above. The film runs 177 minutes and was shot in Lithuania. GRADE: A-

LookNorth01 The writer of this movie obviously was unfamiliar with the true history of The Huns. Possibly he wrote it giving Attila the Hun's life a similarity to the King Arthur story. Maybe even with a twist of Harry Potter. It is terrible, and the writer should be ashamed. The dialogue stinks. In my opinion, this movie is awful. It is a "B" movie, which is mostly historically inaccurate. I do not recommended it as an informative movie, or teaching aid. Anyone not knowing Attila or The Huns will have the wrong idea about him/them after watching this movie. This movie is also a great discredit to the legacy of The Huns as well as any descendants of The Huns. I should hope someday, someone comes out with an modern epic movie of Attila the Hun, and that it is accurate and far better than this lame movie.

Yorick The factual errors in this movie are quite simply astounding. It's shameful. Shame shame shame. Great acting at times, especially from Boothe, but the screenplay is appalling.1. Attila and the Huns were Turkic, not Caucasian. Contemporaries descriptions of him painted him as a Mongol. Flat nose etc. Genghis Khan traced his lineage to the Huns. 2. He and Flavius Aetius were both hostage exchanges as children. Attila spent time as a child in Rome, the same time Flavius was with the Huns. That could have made for an interesting film.3. Attila jointly ruled with his older brother (who I believe was from the same father? Ruga was both mens uncle) for a fair while, building the empire together, before he allegedly killed him and ruled solo.4. Aetius and Attila became friends when Aetius spent a brief exile with the Huns. Why leave that out?5. this is what wikipedia says about Honoria's situation and the dowry etc:"However Valentinian's sister Honoria, in order to escape her forced betrothal to a senator, had sent the Hunnish king a plea for help—and her ring—in the spring of 450. Though Honoria may not have intended a proposal of marriage, Attila chose to interpret her message as such; he accepted, asking for half of the western Empire as dowry. When Valentinian discovered the plan, only the influence of his mother Galla Placidia convinced him to exile, rather than kill, Honoria; he also wrote to Attila strenuously denying the legitimacy of the supposed marriage proposal. Attila, not convinced, sent an embassy to Ravenna to proclaim that Honoria was innocent, that the proposal had been legitimate, and that he would come to claim what was rightfully his."more truth is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_the_HunI wish Hollywood would learn that truth is more interesting than finding fabled swords and screwing around with what actually happened. This is a lame film with bad dialogue, terrible motivations for the protagonists (I'm just starting to build my empire" puhleeeeez!!!), and zero credibility. What a shame. So much potential yet again wasted.

nearlyblonde-1 I have not seen this film, but intend to. I notice some comments about Attila and how in this film he was portrayed as not being the truly bad person that "historical fact" believes him to be. Perhaps this film portrayed him more accurately. He certainly was a warrior, and likely very fearless and when he needed to be. He was a great leader for his people, and not the monster that history portrays him to be. For those of you who are now interested in knowing a bit more about Attila, read http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/attila1.html this short report by a contemporary Greek writer, Priscus describes a man very different than many of the other detractors of this great leader, who was beloved by his nation. I have read stories by historians who said that the Huns in Attilas's time were so primitive they ate their meat raw., etc. etc.