It is 200 years before the birth of Christ and Rome is the new superpower of the ancient world. She believes she is invincible - but one man is destined to change that. He is a man bound by oath to avenge the wrongs inflicted on his home and, in pursuit of revenge, he will stop at nothing. Hannibal explores the man behind the myth, revealing what drove the 26-year-old to mastermind one of the most audacious military moves in history. With 40,000 soldiers and 37 elephants, he marched 1,500 miles to challenge his enemies on their own soil. It was an act so daring that few people believed it possible. Hannibal combines drama, the latest historical research and state-of-the-art CGI to bring this spectacular story to life. 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.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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… 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.<br/><br/>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.<br/><br/>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..
Vollott replied
344 weeks ago