|
Directed by: Stanley Kubrick Starring: Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier I love movies about Rome and her history but this feel tested my love. Kubrick was a control freak, it shows in this film. It could of been edited down to a more viewable time and left out a lot of worthless chit-chat. Was it really needed to have that little teacher/singer in the film? His whole story could and should of been left on the cutting room floor. This feel does show us what a great actor Kirk Douglas is. RATING: 3.5 PROS: Overused catchphrase CONS: Kubrick needed an editor ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 10:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
I enjoyed every minute of it. I personally think it's a 5. I have to admit, I'm Spartacus, so I may be biased.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2004 22:40
|
|
|
Spartacus gets very good about 150 minutes into it, starting with a fantastic battle scene, and from there things taking a big turn for the worse for our hero but more interesting for the viewer. That first 2.5 hours, though... mediocre Hollywood by-the-numbers epic. Felt like it was written by committee, hitting all the formulaic points. There were some good scenes, but they were few and far between; for the most part I was yawning and periodically checking the remaining time on the disc. Peter Ustinov and Charles Laughton were dandy, however. I'd have liked more of them, and less of hammy Douglas and Olivier. Don't even get me started on Tony Curtis and John ("Rope") Dall. It's good to know that Stanley didn't care much for this film (and had relatively little to do with it) since it's easily my least favorite Kubrick. Rating: 2.5
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2005 21:29
|
|
|
Ugh. I wanted to like this movie. I love Stanley Kubrick, and thought Kirk Douglas was very good in Paths of Glory, but there are just so many problems. Firstly is Kirk Douglas's acting, which is mostly uninspired, punctuated by moments of sheer incompetence. He has the right look for Spartacus, but he just can't sell the character. This isn't helped by bad performances from many of the other actors, including Spartacus's wife, Varinia (Jean Simmons). More importantly, it just doesn't feel like a Kubrick film. The cinematography isn't great, and the plot is obvious and ponderously moralizing. The film is over three hours and just feels painfully long (and I normally love long movies). Kirk Douglas was the executive producer, and to be honest it feels like he must have been trying to backseat direct the film. Luckily, Kubrick learned his lesson and insisted on full creative control over his future projects. Also, for a film so fixated on its moral message (slavery is bad), there are moments that betray the dated ethics of its creators. These include the beginning of the opening narration, "In the last century before the birth of the new faith called Christianity, which was destined to overthrow the pagan tyranny of Rome and bring about a new society..", as well as a scene where the main antagonist, Crassus (Laurence Olivier) is hinted to be bisexual, in an attempt to make him creepier. It would be unfair to say the movie is a complete wash. Laurence Olivier is very good as the power-hungry senator Crassus, but Peter Ustinov, who plays Batiatus, trainer of gladiators, has by far the best performance. Batiatus is a kind of cunning sycophant who you immediately like for his wit and cleverness, despite his profession and amoral behavior. The final battle sequence is memorable for the huge number of extras who form the Roman legions, but is otherwise tedious. And, of course, the "I am Spartacus!" scene is great. 2.5 I.G. fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jun 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
Not a great Douglas fan. I am however a big Kubrick fan. From this film alone you wouldn't suspect Kubrick's later remarkable career path so much. Except for his selection in subject matter, which is fundamentally revolutionary. This film is a decent rendition of the legend of Spartacus, a story that should be retold to every generation. For me, this will always be the definitive version probably. Could it be done better? I'm sure it could, but in addition to the immortal story of Spartacus, all the stylistic and thematic cachet attached to this version makes it a story of the generation that created it too. Of all the "biblical times" type films such as "Ben Hur," "The Ten Commandments," etc., this one alone stands out as NOT a colorful film set in biblical times doing generic lip service to the whitebread version of Christianity that ultimately gave us "Jesus Christ Superstar." Four stars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 08:07
|
|
