Hannibal (2006)

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.