One year earlier, in 1959, William Wyler finished his own opus known to film buffs as Ben Hur.
In 1960, Kubrick directed this film under the tight scrutiny of the "real" producer, Douglas himself.
Both films seem alike in the IMDb. That is, the ratings are similar, the public acclaim (at the time) similar, and both won multiple awards.
But the real battle, the real foe, is time itself.
A half-century later, BEN HUR still shines, the dialog still rings, and Heston's prideful acting outlives the actor himself, as is true with all great actors.
This film does not fare so well for any who would spend 3+ hours with it. Douglas could not resist casting himself in the lead even though he was 45 at the time. The average age of an actual Roman gladiator was 22.
So Spartacus, to the jaundiced eye, seems more than the story of someone's father raising an army of slaves, than an actual gladiator.
The fight scenes all seem staged, as, indeed, much of the "action" seemed in most films of the era -- compared to SPARTACUS BLOOD AND SAND in 2010, for example, the 1960 film seems almost in slow motion.
The point? I could go on. Jean Simmonds seems lost in her role. The dialog is stilted. The music is insanely wrong, too much wind instrument noise, also common for the era. In fact, of the entire cast, the only one who seems comfortable in the role of a Roman is Peter Ustinov and that is because he carried himself in real life the same way, as if everyone he met was in some way beneath him.
There are timeless films and timeless performances. This is not one of them.
In 1960, Kubrick directed this film under the tight scrutiny of the "real" producer, Douglas himself.
Both films seem alike in the IMDb. That is, the ratings are similar, the public acclaim (at the time) similar, and both won multiple awards.
But the real battle, the real foe, is time itself.
A half-century later, BEN HUR still shines, the dialog still rings, and Heston's prideful acting outlives the actor himself, as is true with all great actors.
This film does not fare so well for any who would spend 3+ hours with it. Douglas could not resist casting himself in the lead even though he was 45 at the time. The average age of an actual Roman gladiator was 22.
So Spartacus, to the jaundiced eye, seems more than the story of someone's father raising an army of slaves, than an actual gladiator.
The fight scenes all seem staged, as, indeed, much of the "action" seemed in most films of the era -- compared to SPARTACUS BLOOD AND SAND in 2010, for example, the 1960 film seems almost in slow motion.
The point? I could go on. Jean Simmonds seems lost in her role. The dialog is stilted. The music is insanely wrong, too much wind instrument noise, also common for the era. In fact, of the entire cast, the only one who seems comfortable in the role of a Roman is Peter Ustinov and that is because he carried himself in real life the same way, as if everyone he met was in some way beneath him.
There are timeless films and timeless performances. This is not one of them.