Spartacus (1960)

UNJUSTIFIBLY LONG

Having never seen this movie I finally caught with it recently but found it rather disappointing, specially when comparing it to later films which it obviously influenced but also in which special effects were leaps ahead (Braveheart, Gladiator) and so was common sense. Here's why:
1) The majority of action sequences take place off-camera, there is only one really big, epic battle. What we do get are endless talking scenes with very little dialogue spread over long stretches, in other words, the epic lenght is hardly justified.
2) Absolutely ridiculous scene in which Douglas addresses hundreds of thousands of people without the benefit of a single microphone. I guess off-camera he said something in the likes of "pass it on".
3) Laughable scenes with thousands of death people, all with healthy looking faces, the same applies to SPARTACUS when he is being crucified, hardly showing any pain.
4) How can we admire SPARTACUS fighting skills when he doesn't even win any of the gladiator fights ? His ability in the training machine (jumping and ducking) hardly counts.
5) I wish I could say I was moved by the leading lady's looks or presence but this was hardly the case. There are also scenes in which she is supposed to be carrying a well covered SPARTACUS' baby that looks so stiff it is more than obvious they filmed it with a doll. And then she is shown escaping incognito, having been rescued from Olivier's crutches and she stops in front of a crucified Spartacus and kisses his feet, right in front of several roman soldiers !
My recommendation, buy GLADIATOR or BRAVEHEART instead ! December 26, 2008

A Parable For Today

The name Spartacus has a long and honorable history in the annals of the modern international labor movement, most notably, as used by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and their comrades as the early name for their ill-fated revolutionary organization the Sparatacusbund in the 1919 German revolutionary working class uprising. Why would a 20th century revolutionary labor organization use the name of a pre-Christian era Thracian slave-general for their organization? To state the question is to provide the answer. The symbiotic relationship between the efforts to overthrow Roman chattel slavery in ancient times and capitalist wage slavery in modern ones is a "no-brainer". Whether one can draw that inference from the story line of this cinematic effort is another question. That is where the fact that this story line, as outlined by director Stanley Kubrick and producer Kirk Douglas, is based on a novel by the old-time former Stalinist and Hollywood blacklisted writer Howard Fast (and screenplay by blacklisted John Howard Lawton)tells us that it is at least partially so.

As to the story line- of course from minute one all our sympathies are, or should be, with the Thracian slave Spartacus who longs to be free from the boot heel of the Roman slave master. As the story progresses we confront two different concepts of the world- Spartacus's longings to be free and Rome's, at this time barely republican, need to control the known world by example, if possible, by force of the legions if necessary. The film traces that inevitably conflict, especially in its military form, until the final clash between armies in the field of the slave and the master. Not for the last time the master wins- but the longings to be free are never really extinguished despite those plebeian defeats. That is the real message here. Remember it, please.

Throw in a little love interest for old Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) with a slave girl (Jean Simmons) that helps to keep him going, some graphic scenes on the tough life of the gladiator, a little humor provided by the owner of the gladiator school (an Oscar-winning Peter Ustinov) and a little Roman ruling class intrigue between the good Roman republican (Charles Laughton) and the first of a line of would-be imperial dictators (Laurence Olivier) and you have a three hour film that has some grit. See this older classic cinematic effort for the acting and fine directing. But also see it to know why someday, somewhere the plebes will rise again.
October 10, 2008

Well-made Epic but very Fictionalized

Spartacus is a well made epic from the days when Hollywood specialized in Roman epics. It presents the story of a slave who becomes a gladiator before rebelling and launching the most famous of the great slave rebellions in the Roman Republic (The Third Servile War). Lawrence Olivier plays Marcus Crassus, a wealthy Roman leader determined to crush the rebellion. Overall the acting from Douglas, Olvier, Simons, Curtis, and Ustinov is quite good. The musical score is adequate. The epic battle scene is truely impressive and features thousands of extras. It seems somewhat better filmed than many of the contemporary film battle scenes. There are some truely memorable visiuals such as the thousands of dead after the battle and rows of crucified rebels lining the Via Appia.
Overall, a well made Roman epic.

Now, for the negative parts. The extra footage doesn't seem to add much except hinting that Crassus's character is bisexual. I don't know if the real Crassus was or not but it really doesn't add much to the story either way. The history in the movie is seriously flawed. The number of battles in the Third Servile War is really trimmed down and the depiction of the battles shown aren't entirely accurate. In the film Spartacus's army is overwhelmed by three Roman armies. In real life, Crassus's army alone did most of the damage. Also, the crosses along the Via Appia are too close together (see the commentary in a book I reviewed on the Servile Wars). Also, Spartacus was apparently killed in the climatic battle rather than being crucified. The movie doesn't even mention the slave army's opportunity to try and cross the Alps which they ultimately rejected. In the battle scenes, none of the Romans wear chain mail that I could notice (I believe chain mail was being worn by some at this time). Also, the Pilum throwing spear (while apparently present) isn't shown to be thrown and archers seem to be missing in the final battle.

Overall, a very entertaining film with good action sequences and fine acting on the whole. The history is terrible. I should probably point out that the battles have some fairly violent scenes and thus are probably not suitable for younger children. Overall, good but not spectacular. September 29, 2008

Non-anamorphic widescreen

If you have a widescreen TV, get the criterion version. This version sports new packaging, but it's the same print from 10 years ago...which is to say it is NOT enhanced for correct display on widescreen TVs. September 6, 2008

Great Movie - Inaccurate History

Entertaining film, well worth the time. But Hollywood history. To begin with Sparticus was a Roman not a Thracian. Marcus Licineus Crassus trapped Sparticus in the Toe of Italy, not the Heel. Pompey "The Great" (The "Great" part not mentioned in the film) returned from Spain where he had helped defeat a Roman rebel named Quintus Sertorius, by the land route through France, not by sea. Also, there was no such thing as "The Garrison of Rome". But again a fun film and a classic. August 20, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...