GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

adonis98-743-186503 A romanced story of Attila the Hun, from when he lost his parents in childhood until his death. Attila is disclosed as a great leader, strategist and lover and the movie shows his respect to the great Roman strategist Flavius Aetius, his loves and passions, the gossips, intrigues and betrayals in Rome, all of these feelings evolved by magic and mysticism. Attila benefits from terrific perfomances by both Gerard Butler as Attila and Powers Booth as Aetius but also a nice set of storytelling, love, war and betrayal that definitely overcomes some flaws. (8/10)

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.

russem31 For someone who is a history buff, especially of the period this movie, Attila, is trying to portray (roughly 430 AD to 455 AD), I was happy to finally see a Roman Empire movie specifically about this period. Most Roman Empire movies before were either of the Julius Caesar or Marcus Aurelius periods (i.e. Gladiator). That said, there are a lot of historical inaccuracies (due to budgetary constraints for example, they used August era Roman costumes), but I was willing to overlook that because of the filmmakers' attempt to try to represent the widening cultural differences between the divided Western and Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empires (the empire divided in 395 AD) - a good example is showing the Western Emperor Valentinian III as portrayed as a Roman in Augustus era Imperial regalia whereas the Eastern Emperor Theodosius II is accurately portrayed in more Oriental Persian influenced garb. Ironically, the actor that steals the show is not the title character Atilla but Powers Boothe, Flavius Aetius, also known by his nickname, the last Roman. Again, while there are many inaccuracies, this movie is entertaining for showing a period of Roman history (during its decline) that rarely is explored. A 7 out of 10.

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.