Hannibal (2006 TV Movie) User Reviews

This exciting Television movie blends historic documentary , drama and spectacular battles

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 21 February 2007]

This is an epic documentary and fiction film released by History channel . Hannibal history is imaginatively brought to the life on impressive images with great production values by thousands of extras and state-of-the-art FX , including computer generator shots , recreating faithfully his army with 40,000 soldiers and 37 elephants . Sword cross , drama and documentary abound in this spellbinding adaptation on audacious Hannibal existence , one of the most glorious military in the History .

Hannibal (Alexander Siddig) made an oath in the presence his father , Amilcar Barca , to revenge the injustice inflicted on his country , Charthago .His sons Hannibal, Mago (Hamada) and Asdrubal gather together for battling the Romans . It was an act so daring that few people believed it possible . Hannibal broke the ¨statu quo¨, he crossed river Ebro, the natural frontier between the Roman power and the Charthaginian and he attacked Sagunto allied of Roma , causing the second Punic war . The mastermind Charthaginian commander going on crossing the Pyrinees and Alps with a colossal Army : 5o.ooo military,9.ooo horses and 37 elephants transported from Africa . He marched 1,500 miles to challenge his enemies on their own soil . Hannibal vanquished the Roman Army in several battles : Trevia (218) , lake Trasimeno (217) which caused a great commotion and Roma appointed a Dictator named Favio Maximus (Ben Cross) . Finally ,the Romans suffered the greatest defeat : Cannas(216) . Then , it was appointed the commander Publio Cornelius Scipion (Rob Dixon) who achieved defeat the Charthaginians and he took Cartago Nova and Gades and beheaded to Asdrúbal , whose head was sent his brother Hannibal . While , Hannibal hoped reinforcements from Chartago , Publio Cornelio Escipion the African disembarked in Africa and threaten Chartago . Then , Hannibal returned to Africa for confronting against Escipion . And Hannibal was ultimately defeated in Zama (202) , in spite of getting a most numbered Army . He flees and takes refuge under king Antioco III in Syria and he , posteriorly , committed suicide.

This TV movie , though semi-documentary and historical research , is well played by an excellent plethora of fine British actors . Alexander Siddig as Hannibal is magnificent, he is usual in costumer roles , in a Lawrence of Arabia (1991 with Ralph Fiennes) version played king Feisal ; besides , he played in Kingdom of heaven , Reign of fire and Syriana (as the Oriental prince). The famed actor Ben Cross (Chariots of fire) plays splendidly as Favio Máximo . The prestigious secondary actor Kenneth Cranham actuates as voice narrator in off . The movie will appeal to people enamored with historic event and epic feats.

functional docudrama

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 14 September 2015]

Three hundred years before Christ, Carthage rules the Mediterrean but upstart Rome is threatening its dominance. Hannibal (Alexander Siddig) is pushing to fight Rome and leads an army from Spain through the Alps into Italy. Scipio would witness his father's shameful defeat and rescues him. Hannibal gathers disenfranchised northern Italian tribes and gains victory after victory. Roman Senator Fabius Maximus (Ben Cross) favors avoiding a direct battle with Hannibal. However he's ignored and Hannibal massacres the best of Rome in the battle of Cannae in 216 BC. Hannibal misses his chance to sack Rome and Carthage abandons him in Italy. Carthage suffers more and more losses from Scipio's troops until Hannibal is called home as a last resort.

This is a functional educational docudrama. Siddig is a compelling actor. The CG battles are fine. There aren't big numbers of extras for the battle scenes but it's filled in with CG creations. At least, they have some real elephants. This is well-made TV movie that shows the big highlights of an epic life.

Schöner Ausstattungsfilm - matte Dramaturgie

[jknigge · 7/10 · 18 May 2006]

Nice to look at. Hannibal going over the Alps, the battle of Cannae, war elephants, and the major characters of this epic conflict are worthwhile looking at. The enormous dramatic potential of characters like Hannibal and his Roman adversaries, Varro, Fabius and Scipio have not been transferred to a really thrilling film, though. The whole script sticks very close to the ancient Roman historians Livius and Polybios - almost to the letter. Especially the titles introducing characters or events make the film look like a school film sometimes. Nonetheless Hannibal enthusiasts will have a pleasant evening with this movie.

Good but wayyy to short....

[userwithnoname · 6/10 · 12 December 2006]

The BBC makes a lot of good historical documentaries and the story of Hannibal has everything needed for a great one. This treatment was very far from it, simply because it was too short. Given the length of Hannibal's campaign, much longer than Alexander's, a two hour documentary would be the minimum.

Okay, BBC doesn't have the budget and our knowledge of Hannibal is incomplete, not to mention that much of what we do know is in contention. Still, Hannibal's genius didn't just lie in his crossing of the alps and Cannae, but in general logistics. His being able to outmaneuver his opponents again and again. I would love to have seen the crossing of the Rhone, both Trebbia and Trasimene, and a lot more detail on Cannae and Zama, all of which are timeless classics in classical history. The fact that our knowledge is incomplete also allows for a lot of opportunists for informed guesswork and gap-filling, which the producers have missed out on.

All this is a huge shame because Siddig was a very believable Hannibal and a good actor. In general, BBC documentaries do history much better than Hollywood, because attention is given to accuracy, and the target audience is more specific. It's just unfortunate that they're limited by such things and budget and time constraints. Given the length of this show, it is unlikely that it will be released on DVD, and it will be a long time before there will be another attempt at Hannibal...

Okay in general. But too many historical inaccuracies.

[petra-axolotl · 6/10 · 3 May 2013]

I did read Livius' Ab Urbe Condita, largely based on which the film was made. Thus I could not help comparing the film with what Livius originally wrote. (The Anglicized name of Livius is Livy. But I will stick to Livius in this review because I do not like the practice of Anglicization of proper names in general.)

Livius' spent more than ten books on the Second Punic War. So it is a very difficult task to condense the story within 90 minutes. The film has done relatively well. The most important events have been included. (It would have been better if Hannibal's political achievements after the conclusion of the Second Punic War had not been omitted. Hannibal was not only a great general, but also a good statesman.)

The major problem that I see with this film is historical inaccuracies.

The first moment that I was a bit turned off was when Hannibal said he would enter Italy via France. But the name France was not to exist for hundreds of years. Unlike Spain or Italy, France did not get its modern name until the beginning of the Middle Ages. I can understand that the director did not want to confuse modern audience with historical names like Gaul. But still, calling that region France in Hannibal's time is preposterous. The same with "Turkey" at the end of the film. Come on. The Turks would not be known in Europe for another 1500 years. (Fortunately they did not decide to call Carthage Tunisia.)

The scene that Hannibal ordered his soldiers to bring firewood and wine to break a big rock blocking his way in the Alps is based on a story told by Livius. But the authenticity of this story has long been disputed. Given its historical insignificance, I am not sure whether it was wise to include this story in the film while omitting many much more important events.

Good movie

[androgenix-1 · 7/10 · 26 February 2007]

I have a bad habbit comparing everything about the ancient world these days to Gladiator, which is fictional but one testosterone bomb of a movie, with insane effect and a Russel Crowe with an aura that would make him the roman equalliant to the legendary Erwin Rommel if he was a general in old rome for real.

But as a documentary rather than a big budget fictional Hollywood-movie, Alexander Sidding fits the role of Hannibal well and I was very satisfied with the outcome of this film, even though the roman players were not much to brag about. But its fantastic they finally make a REALISTIC movie, where telling the true story are in focus! Why invent a bullshit story when we have so many real stories to make movies about? Fact is often more amazing than fiction! I got what i hoped for and a good lesson in history, although I wish the movie had dwelled more with everyday life in Carthage. The name Hannibal means "son of Baal", Baal being an acronym for the god we all know as Satan, which could be interesting to dwell with.

But it is a movie i definitely will have in my movie collection. Absolutely. It will not get a 10 as Gladiator, but an good 7. 3 from the the top 10 for not having Riddley Scot to make the scenery, plus all the roman actors should get sacked, and we should have Russel Crowe as Scipio Africanus instead! Now that would be one hell of a movie..

Alexander Siddig

[Kirpianuscus · 2 August 2017]

his performance is admirable. and this is the first virtue of film. the second virtue - the BBC high science to give to public a seductive, impressive, fascinating portrait of the Hannibal actions. but, each god has its sacrifices. in this case - the historical accuracy. the first excuse - for a real close to testimonies image , it needs a series. and a smaller target. but a good, a real good thing defines this beautiful film - the return to the history lessons - as memories and fragments of rumors about the words of teacher about Zama , elephants and the force of Carthagena- but, maybe, in same measure, as return to the sources about the great hero and his wars against Rome. and this is the best detail in this case.

Factually inaccurate

[kendoka-azhrei · 6/10 · 21 February 2010]

Please give citations for your claims - for example, that Scipio declared that Hannibal become governor of Carthage - Hannibal became Shophete after the Romans had left, not because of them. Carthage signed for peace but did not give up their brilliant general, but Rome's wrath was so much that he was eventually forced to flee the city.

You also claim that Hannibal honoured his agreement with Scipio and so did not return to Carthage to lead them in battle. I've found no such evidence of this, it was well known that he attempted to convince other rulers around the Mediterranean (such as Antiochus III) to make war with Rome. This behaviour is not in line with someone who agreed to never make war on Rome again.

Thirdly, you say that Scipio is the greater general of the two - this is very much debatable. Did he beat Hannibal at Zama? Yes, he did, but there were many reasons for this and his supposed higher quality as a general is not one of them. Leaving these reasons aside, Scipio was so successful because he emulated Hannibal, not because he came up with brilliant strategies of his own. He turned Hannibal's own tactics against him and quite brilliantly, but the point remains that they were not his tactics to begin with.

Finally, the film does flutter about Scipio's role in Roman politics - in real life, Scipio lost favour with the senate due to increasing pressure from his political enemies, and his popularity with the people, and dropped out of the public limelight entirely. It was not due to some honourable statement of his.

BBC Drama/Documentary

[jimliz153 · 10/10 · 15 September 2006]

I was very impressed with the quality and history telling in this BBC adaption. The BBC seem to have a talent for picking famous stories and fetching them to life in a unique drama and documentary blend. I had little knowledge of Hannibal before watching it (most people just know about the elephants) but after watching it i new the entire history of Hannibal. The acting was excellent with actors such as Alexander Siddig (kingdom of heaven) and a lot more fine actors . I would say this is a must for any person who enjoys history and enjoys a good factual story of a man who turned the tables on the greatest nation in the world (Romans) .

Engaging, well made and educational

[I_Ailurophile · 7/10 · 21 November 2022]

Inasmuch as this is a historical TV movie, there's no getting around that it's also a quasi-documentary, a regimented dramatization of the events at hand. For the latter aspect in particular, there's an unfortunate directness to the presentation that's a little off-putting. This is reflected in the detached narration of Kenneth Cranham, or of star Alexander Siddig as Hannibal; in the brusque plot development, tracing the course of history in a somewhat truncated manner; in the inserted graphics of maps plotting the march of armies; and perhaps most of all, in the periodic editing that minimizes the active footage to a corner of the screen and displays text in a modern typeface to accentuate the identification of a person or place. To varying degrees all these facets serve to tamper with our suspension of disbelief, and otherwise make it more difficult to engage with the material on any but a rather light level. While I do enjoy 'Hannibal: Rome's worst nightmare,' for my part I'd have preferred a more conventional feature film angle.

Even such as it is, however, I don't think there's any arguing that this is well made. A strong cast was assembled, including Siddig and Ben Cross as the major star power; I think the acting is solid in realizing these figures, with Siddig especially illustrating swell nuanced range and poise. I appreciate Ty Unwin's vibrantly dramatic score, and Edward Bazalgette's mindful direction; while I somewhat disagree with the choices made, I think the editing (including sequencing) and other visual flair are executed well. I have a fondness even for the lighting, and Mike Spragg's rich cinematography. More than this, the filming locations are lovely, and the production design and art direction are splendid. The costume design, hair and makeup, weapons, and props are likewise terrific, helping to cement the recreations. Bursts of battle violence are excellent, orchestrated and shot with wonderful, invigorating sharpness; to the credit of writers Matthew Faulk and Mark Skeet, even quieter dramatic moments of dialogue are rife with spiteful tension. While special effects are employed sparingly, I think they look pretty good.

Furthermore, my commendations to all involved for helping to craft a well made picture that does a fine job of laying out history simply and concisely. The progression of Hannibal's protracted campaign against Rome, and its forestallment and eventual failure, is presented to us very clearly, step by step. The forthrightness of the project might not do it any favors off the bat in terms of engagement, yet the tradeoff is precision in its core intent. To that point, it's easy to imagine that a more big-budget affair, a major motion picture, may readily embellish the telling, or weave in elements to make it more sensational - romance, sex, nudity, emphatic bloody violence. This 2006 BBC production declines all such flourishes, focusing concretely on the central subject matter, and the result is that the viewer gains a firm understanding of Hannibal as a real person while still being treated to (relatively restrained) depictions of the war, and the heightened emotions that adjoined it.

I don't think this is entirely perfect, though that may just be a matter of personal preference more than anything else. For any subjective faults, by and large this is even better than I could have hoped, or assumed at first blush. A lot of hard work went into providing a period look and feel, and palpable tension and vivid energy fill these ninety minutes even outside the battle sequences. I very much like the cast, and the title can claim high production values overall. This may not appeal to all comers given some of the decisions made in terms of its presentation, a sentiment I agree with in part, yet it's plainly enjoyable on its own merits in addition to being rather educational. Whether you're a fan of someone involved, history, or the BBC, or just looking for something interesting to watch, 'Hannibal: Rome's worst nightmare' is worth checking out if you have the chance.

This HD showpiece has ambition but the Soap Opera quality writing and evening news style segways grate after ten minutes.

[Filmrage · 3/10 · 26 September 2006]

A great story and a match made in heaven you'd think considering the Beebs past efforts. Despite its scholarly pretensions though this one's a real clunker.

Hanibal starts out promisingly. Soon in though face off between the whiny and diminutive Hanibal and the extremely over acted Roman envoy set the tone.

The writing is just awful and when in a strategic meeting Hannibal refers to 'France' and 'Spain' rather than 'Gaul' and 'Iberia' then you know this isn't gonna bit the usual BBC highbrow standards.

The battle scenes in HD compensate for the toe curlingly bad dialogue though, especially those of the elephants charging collumns of Romans. (altough in reality only one elephant made it alive over the alps.)

A good effort on the technical side. Now if only can marry the folks at the beeb who knock out the quality stuff with these guys we could be in for some epic TV.

A Carthaginian commander who defeated Romans in their own land in series of battles.

[Deadfool · 10/10 · 23 September 2006]

Rome's worst nightmare Hannibal Barca (Alexander Siddig) man who was born to defeat Romans. A nice epic movie based on true story of Carthage's one of the finest military commander Hannibal Barca, he marched an army, which famously included war elephants, from Iberia over the Pyrenees and the Alps into northern Italy, Man who defeated roman army in their homeland Italy in series of battles out of which the most famous included the Battles of Trebia, Trasimene and Cannae, he stayed undefeated for over an decade in Italy till he was called back to secure his homeland Carthage after roman invasion. A very interesting movie for people who likes Epic Battles. Alex Siddig truly rocks in this movie.

To little about the strategy of the battles

[madsgormlarsen · 4/10 · 16 April 2022]

To little about the strategy of the battles - too much emphasis on motivation, will etc. Not enough about how the smaller army could win over lager ammes.

A great drama.

[dzelaz · 8/10 · 29 November 2006]

Hannibal Barca, a man who's tactics at Cannae are still studied at Military Academies (West Point) to this day, is in my opinion the greatest commander that ever lived. Of course we have Alexander, of whom Hannibal studied his military tactics. However Hannibal, at great odds against him, moved a force of 46,000 men with 37 war elephants across the Alps at the start of winter and made it to Italy. Of course he lost almost half his forces and only a few elephants survived. At any rate this achievement alone proved his leadership and willpower to overcome any obstacle between him and his most hated enemy...Rome. General Schwarzkopf made reference to Hannibal during Desert Storm and used some of his tactics during the invasion. As to the TV movie, the acting was pretty good, Siddig's performance as Hannibal was very good. An interesting point were the battles. They would show the aftermath of the battles, rather then a prolonged sequence of bloodletting. Historically accurate to a certain degree(according to the Romans as stated at the end of the movie), I enjoyed it. An interesting point is that Hannibal enabled Rome to become the conquering empire that we all know of. Scipio used Hannibal's tactics to defeat him at Zama and was then bestowed the title Scipio Africanus. In any event, let's hope Vin's portrayal of Hannibal is at least as good as this one.

A Masterpiece Hannibal Doesn't Need But Deserves

[msyonet · 10/10 · 27 May 2021]

This documentary has great casting, great scenes and great ambitions to tell one of the greatest, maybe the greatest, general of human history. I strongly recommend anyone who wants to watch something worth their time. And I thank to everyone who had their name written in credits. Thanks to your efforts, a child has learnt one more artist of warfare.

The Story of Hannibal Barca

[whiterose-54828 · 8/10 · 31 July 2021]

An interesting docudrama telling the story of Hannibal Barca, the ancient Carthaginian general who led his forces against Rome.

Throughout the film we follow Hannibal, from his childhood when he swears to forever be an enemy of Rome to his crossing of the alps and ultimately the decisive Battle of Zama where his forces face off against those of the Roman general Scipio. Despite some minor historical inaccuracies (the modern names France and Spain being used to describe their ancient counterparts) the story is told very faithfully and despite being a TV production the film has great production value and almost feels cinematic at points.

Alexander Siddig gives a wonderful performance as Hannibal, so much so that it's his version of Hannibal that comes to mind when I think of Hannibal Barca. Shaun Dingwall is also great at portraying Scipio and in the few scenes they share together they play off each other very well.

Overall it is a very good docudrama and was my personal first introduction to the history of Hannibal and Carthage. I'd highly recommend it for anyone interested in ancient Roman or Carthaginian history or ancient history in general.

Very good to see something about the historically neglected Scipio.

[aristarchus-2 · 8/10 · 7 June 2009]

It is very good to see something about the historically neglected Scipio. Who, in my estimation, is the greatest General of all time. But his greatness goes beyond military prowess. He saved Rome from extinction and set the foundation for it being first the Ruler of the Mediterranean, then of the "Known World".

His victory was historically very significant, as it meant that Europe and the "Western" World would be Christian and largely Caucasian. If Hannibal had won, Europe and the West would have been Oriental and probably Muslim. The Carthaginians were Oriental. And North Africa did become Muslim about 800 years later. Had Carthage lasted to that point, "we" would have most likely been Muslim and Oriental.

The film is generally accurate, but fails on one significant point. Hannibal did not immediately escape to Turkey. After his defeat, Scipio appointed him--his defeated enemy--as military governor of Carthage. And within 5 years Carthage was more prosperous than ever before. And has repaid all the war reparations imposed by Scipio and Rome.

Later, some dissatisfied militarists wanted Carthage to go back to war with Rome. They asked Hannibal to lead them, but he would have no part of it. He wanted to honor his agreement with Scipio. He fled the country to avoid having to start what he knew would be a lost war. Which the Third Punic War was. This time there was no honorable and rational Scipio, and Carthage was totally destroyed. Becoming part of the desert sand.

The source for this is "A Greater than Napoleon", by B. H. Liddell Hart, the noted British historian. Perhaps the best military historian of the 20th Century. In the early 1930s he tried to persuade the British government about the danger of the Panzer Divisions Hitler was building. The German generals read his books. During the Second World War they would often muse to themselves, "I wonder what Liddell Hart would do now...?" After the war, none of the German generals wanted to talk to anyone. But when offered the chance to talk to Liddell Hart they said "Yes, yes! I would be honored to talk to him".

But there is a seemingly unknown, very important side of Scipio. After his victory at Zama he was accorded a Triumph in Rome, granted by a grateful Senate and people. I can see him know, leading the remnants of the 5th and 6th Legions, defeated at Cannae, but reformed and used by Scipio at Zama. Leading the way up the Appian Way to the Senate.

Scipio was again offered the position of Sole Consul for Life. Meaning "dictator". But he refused, saying the "The Honor of leading Rome to victory over its enemies and saving Rome from destruction is sufficient for me".

Eventually, to honor those who had served him during the 20 long years or so, he relented and accepted. But only for the usual one year, saying "No man should rule other men, and certainly not for a lifetime". Therein lies his greatness. The understanding that ruling the lives of others is immoral. And irrational, as societal system based on coercion cannnot and never do survive in the long term.

Sadly, some time after his victory and when he had retired to his ancestral home in Liternum, he was accused of corruption. "Why did he offer such lenient peace terms?! There must have been bribery".

The Senate sent a young Centurion to Liternum to arrest Scipio on charges of treason. Scipio, interrupting his lunch, met the Centurion in front of his house.

He reminded the Centurion that he was only a schoolboy at the time of his victory at Zama. That he would not understand the true history. That Rome was at the door of defeat, and he--Scipio—-had saved Rome. Had he not done so, "You, young Centurion, would be either dead or a slave of the Carthaginians. Along with your family. Return to the Senate, remind them that I saved Rome, and I want no more of their lack of gratitude and their impertinence".

The chagrined and chastised Centurion did as he should, and there was no more of the matter.

I am very, very grateful to Edward Bazalgette, Phil Dolling and all the others associated with the making of this film.

Dido's Revenge

[Screen_O_Genic · 9/10 · 30 October 2021]

A successful blend of documentary and film "Hannibal" highlights glory and barbarity of the ancient world with one of the greatest and most compelling figures in world history. Depicting the 2nd Punic War and Hannibal Barca's dominant role in it the film is a feast of epic battles, stirring music, drama and politics. Good acting and well-done cinematography bring to life one of history's most imortant and compelling eras. Alexander Siddig stands out in his portrayal as the intense and determined Carthaginian general hellbent on defeating Rome. The film could have been longer considering the epic saga of the subject and key battles and events were shortened or skipped. A definitive epic on this crucial period in history should be done and 'til then this entertaining and moving flick fills the gap. One of the best war films.