Spartacus (1960) User Reviews

Controlling Stanley: The Spartacus Experience

[Arriflex1 · 9/10 · 29 July 2004]

As most are undoubtedly aware this is the film that the director virtually expunged from his repertoire. But why did Stanley Kubrick really disown SPARTACUS (1960)? The answer can be summed up in two words: absolute control. Kubrick wanted total administrative as well as artistic authority over the making of the film about a revolt of gladiators and slaves in ancient Rome.

But you will notice that Bryna Productions not only financed SPARTACUS but also an earlier film directed by Kubrick, PATHS OF GLORY (1958). Bryna was Kirk Douglas' film company and, as most filmgoers know, he was the star of both films. Besides having all the money to make the films, Douglas had artistic vision as well. Only three weeks into what would prove to be an incredibly complex and arduous production, Douglas fired venerable director Anthony Mann (RAW DEAL, RAILROADED,THE FURIES, THE NAKED SPUR, THE MAN FROM LARAMIE, MAN OF THE WEST, etc.) from SPARTACUS. With only two days notice, Kubrick was hired to replace him.

Shooting PATHS OF GLORY, Douglas had confined his criticisms and objections to Kubrick's failed rewriting of the script (they went with the original screenplay). Douglas' complaints and artistic influence were far greater on SPARTACUS, much to Kubrick's chagrin. Though the director craved autonomy over every aspect of the film, Douglas would not budge. A tense compromise was reached but ultimately Douglas had the last word. Kubrick saw himself as just a hired gun. And he would never allow himself to be placed in this position again.

Later, both men would complain about the film's outcome and each other. They never made another movie together.

But SPARTACUS is no uneven patchwork of divergent ideas. The film is cohesive and arresting. At the restored version of three hours and eighteen minutes, there is practically no dead footage in the film. Dalton Trumbo's screenplay is surprisingly economical, with sharply drawn characters placed against the sweeping historical majesty and violent sociological tumult of ancient Rome. Quite plainly, the gloriously inventive music by Alex North is among the greatest scores ever written for a motion picture. And despite Kubrick's bad experience, he managed to guide the actors towards creating outstanding work (a best supporting actor Oscar for Peter Ustinov). He even transformed the very real enmity between Laughton and Olivier into an on-screen asset. His other contributions were considerable also (the large scale and power of the battle sequence, for example). In the end, for the film at least, the clash of giant egos proved fortuitous. Recommendations: for greater insight and detail on this and Kubrick's other films I urge you to seek out Jan Harlan's excellent documentary, STANLEY KUBRICK: A LIFE IN PICTURES, and Vincent LoBrutto's exhaustive, highly informative biography, STANLEY KUBRICK. For the producer's views on SPARTACUS and its director, take a gander at Kirk Douglas' very candid autobiography, THE RAGMAN'S SON.

"Spartacus? You are he, aren't you?"

[brogmiller · 9/10 · 16 April 2020]

It is very much part of Hollywood folklore that having dispensed with the services of Anthony Mann, producer and star Kirk Douglas brought in Stanley Kubrick with whom he had worked so effectively in 'Paths of Glory'. This represented a daunting challenge and Kubrick passed with flying colours. The rest as they say is history although Douglas always felt that Kubrick was not as grateful as he should have been!

It would be well-nigh impossible now to assemble a cast of such substance and quality. There were bound to be clashes of temperament of course and the animosity between Olivier and Laughton has been amusingly recounted by Peter Ustinov who picked up an Oscar as Best Supporting actor. Olivier here is in his physical prime and is magnificent in the role of Crassus. He is ruthlessness incarnate but tender in his scenes with the Lavinia of Jean Simmons. He had previously directed her in 'Hamlet' and their professional bond is palpable.

There are scenes which are indelibly etched notably the gladiatorial combat between Douglas and Woody Strode and the scene where the slave army watches the legions of Crassus forming for battle which must surely have been inspired by Eisenstein's 'Alexander Nevsky'. The score by Alex North although harsh captures perfectly the brutality of the times whilst Russell Metty's cinematography is outstanding.

Forget the others, this is the only gladiator film that really matters and it will never be surpassed.

Spartacus or How I learnt to live away from Hollywood

[filmquestint · 8/10 · 5 February 2005]

This is Kubrick's farewell to Hollywood. I would have liked to be a fly on the wall. I don't believe for a minute that it was a cordial parting of the ways. I mean, Kubrick never returned, never! With "Paths of Glory" Kubrick gave Kirk Douglas, not just his best part as an actor, but his best movie. By the time Douglas called Kubrick to "take over" "Spartacus" Douglas was already a huge star with too much saying in the matter. Look at it, it's clear. "Spartacus" is more Douglas than Kubrick. Great fun to watch, yes, absolutely. A terrific script by black listed Dalton Trumbo. Some fight sequences unequalled in the history of film. Look at the fight between Douglas and Woody Strode and compare it to the ones in "Troy" or "Gladiator" for that matter. It is sad an embarrassing to realise how low we've fallen. Computer generated images or not. The cast is unbelievable but it's clearly not Kubrick's. The casting of his movies was part of his master plan. He would cast a Ryan O'Neil as Barry Lyndon for instance so he can blend perfectly with the magnificent tapestry, without adding any colours of his own. The same can be said of Keir Dullea, in 2001, a robotic non entity in a showdown with a voice. When he needed actors to be at the very pinnacle of his universe he went to Peter Sellers, Malcolm McDowell or James Mason. Even the casting of Tom Cruise made a lot of sense. He used the star and his wife to talk about the dreamlike powers of betrayal. In "Spartacus" Tony Curtis, plays Antoninus, a teacher of the classics. A campy idea never seen in a Kubrick film, before or since. To be fair, there are some spot on, brilliant pieces of casting. Charles Laughton is, as usual, superb. Peter Ustinov, terrific. Laurence Olivier manages to give a multifaceted portrait of weakness, fear and greed. Jean Simmons makes the reason to survive totally believable. But the cutesy love scene between her and a shiny muscular, coiffed Spartacus is truly terrible. As a final blow, the scene is enveloped in a sticky, corny music theme. Having said all that. Don't you dare missing this epic. I'ts Kubrick's goodbye to Hollywood and like everything else that the master said or do, he really meant it.

The Eternal Cry For Freedom

[bkoganbing · 10/10 · 6 March 2005]

From what little I've read of this film it was lucky to have been made at all. Some very big talents had some very big egos and those egos clashed repeatedly. Original director Anthony Mann was replaced by Stanley Kubrick by Producer/Star Kirk Douglas among other clashes.

But the result was all worth it. The stars all give top notch performances, but the mark of a really great film is the memorability of each individual in the ensemble. To give a few examples, Charles McGraw as the sadistic trainer at the gladiatorial school, John Dall as Sir Laurence Olivier's protégé, and John Ireland as Kirk Douglas's fellow gladiator trainee are all memorable in the brief roles they have.

Kirk Douglas wisely opts for a straightforward interpretation of a hero in the title role of Spartacus. He's a BC everyman, born into a world which hadn't heard anything about human rights, he knows and feels he's not just cattle. Catch the alternating scenes of Douglas and Sir Laurence Olivier addressing the slave army and the Roman Army. Olivier with his years of Shakespearean training coming across as the tyrant to be, and Douglas in simple prose talking about the slaves fighting for their hopes and dreams. Very effective.

The plot concerns a revolt at a gladiatorial school which mushrooms into a crisis for the Roman Empire. Political factions led by Olivier as Crassus and Charles Laughton as Gracchus seek to use the slave revolt to further their own ends.

Laughton as always is a wonder. It's a bit of unusual casting for him because his parts are usually those of very tortured souls. His Gracchus is a sly rogue, but a decent man. One of my favorite movie lines of all time is delivered by him addressing the Roman Senate where he says he'll "take a little republican corruption for a little republican freedom."

Another sly rogue in the film is Peter Ustinov who won the first of his two Oscars as Batiatus the owner of the gladiatorial school. Like so many others I'm sure in those days, he's just trying to come out on the winning side when doing so could be a life or death situation.

Jean Simmons as Varinia, beloved of Spartacus, has the only woman's part of any substance. But when was Ms. Simmons bad in anything. One of the most underrated and under-appreciated actresses in the history of film.

The lessons about man's desire for freedom and to control his own destiny are eternal and valid. And this film will be also.

praise

[John von K · 10/10 · 25 June 2001]

The darkest historical epic. No dancing girls, no chariot races, filmed in sombre browns and reds. Nominally directed by Kubrick but Douglas, as a very 'hands on' producer was responsable for the operatic sweep of the film. I was astonished when revisiting the film in 1991 at the cinema at the bravery of the project-to have the hero cry several times, once even out of self pity and with a heart rending ending! The film has depth and weight, the characters are well drawn. The performances are almost flawless, Douglas managing as actor to create tension in each scene-Olivier, not withstanding his eyerolling mannerisms is perfectly cast. The minor parts are richly drawn-gravel voiced Charles McGraw, Herbert Lom and Woody Strode. The cinematography and music are flawless. Only John Dall as a very modern Glaberus and John Ireland as Crixus seem out of place. Ironically, despite the downbeat tone of the film it is impossible to watch it without being uplifted through your tears of compassion. Unofficialy remade as Braveheart...watch one after the other and you'll see the similarities in mood, theme and even the battle choreography. Spartacus would be my 'desert island' movie.

Still relevant after all these years

[bb_org · 10/10 · 26 December 2005]

A very moving and compelling story of epic proportions. The plot is relentless, propelled by a dazzling screenplay. Kubrick draws some of the greatest performances of the cast, and fills the screen with images that fascinate throughout. Well paced for a movie of this magnitude.

To those who complain of anachronisms and poetic license with historical events, I say to them, 'Remember, it is a movie.' To be truly accurate, the cast would be delivering their lines in Latin and ancient Greek, with English subtitles. Whatever Kubrick might lose with historical inaccuracies, he gains far more in his ability to convey the story to the viewer. Even though it is over forty years old, the film tells us more of the present day than it does of the past.

A Bit Long, But A Solid Epic

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 26 October 2006]

This isn't "Ben-Hur," but it's no slouch, either. It's a no-nonsense dramatic tale of a slave who leads a revolt against Rome, is successful in building the movement from almost nothing to an army of thousands, only to be beaten and literally crucified in the end.....but leaving his mark, to use a cliché, on history.

The prelude to the final battle scene is awesome-looking when you see all the soldiers lined up. I liked the fact they didn't overdo the action scenes, which they could easily have done employing a cast of thousands. While they cut those down, they cut down on the overall length of the movie which was over three hours long. At two-and-a-half hours this would have been much easier to view.

Kirk Douglas, as "Spartacus," the leader of that revolt, was excellent and Peter Ustinov shines, too. The dialog given Ustinov and Charles Laughton was intelligent. This movie also featured the acting talents of Jean Simmons, Laurence Olivier, Tony Curtis and John Gavin. Not bad, eh?

A solid adventure story.

An idealized and dull version of Spartacus.

[fedor8 · 14 January 2007]

Watched it again, nearly twenty years later, and I can't say I warmed to it much. I certainly didn't expect Ancient Rome to be shown in such a dark way as in "Caligula" (especially not in 1960), but the story of the slaves who rebelled goes into the other extreme: it's pure Hollywood nonsense, unfortunately. Spartacus isn't bloodthirsty or ruthless enough; he is more like Moses than an ex-slave/gladiator. Out of all the slave women in Ancient Rome, Olivier has to have the one, i.e. has to fall for the exact same one that Spartacus loves. That is just a little too corny for my taste.

The first third, with the training and the rebellion, is actually good, but from then on the pace is much too slow, there are some needless scenes, and the movie gets increasingly unrealistic. Plus, the ending is a downer. ("Braveheart", which is similar in its basic premise, length, and that it has also a downer ending, grips you; "Spartacus" does nothing of the sort.)

The casting is very good, though, with Olivier and Ustinov being particularly good. I see nothing here that would suggest that the best director of all time is behind the camera. Then again, Kubrick was only hired to direct this; i.e. this film wasn't one of his produce/direct/write projects. Also, it was years before he developed his unique style. It's his next movie. "Lolita", that started a string of major classics.

Spectacular movie 7/10

[saadanathan · 7/10 · 12 June 2020]

"Spartacus" is an amazing movie. Along with other movies such as The Ten Commandments and "Cleopatra". They all have features in common: they have massive amounts of stunts and film locations, they are huge movies with amount of production and they all tell interesting and fascinating stories of human history. Today you won't see any massive production like this in Hollywood because everything is made with CGI and green screen. Back in the day it was a revolutionary, that's what makes Spartacus so well appreciated and fascinating. The story is really good. A slave becomes a leader of a big rebellion against the Roman empire. Kirk Douglas is an amazing actor and he does a fabulous job in the portrayal of the heroic character. The score was beautifully composed. The cinematography is probably the main reason this film is so well appreciated and I admit, it is fantastic.

Too sentimental, but beautiful... Wonderfully erotic and surprisingly moving...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 10/10 · 7 December 2000]

Widely acclaimed for his serious ambitions and his uncompromising perfectionism, Stanley Kubrick has won for himself a unique degree of artistic freedom...

Based on a true story of a slave revolt in 73 B.C., Dalton Trumbo's script mixes the melodrama with some quite moving moments... The film depicts the Roman era, the brutality of the slave system, gladiator combat and the decadence of Roman senators... What emerges from the screen is a passionate statement on behalf of freedom and men who are willing to die to overthrow oppressive governments...

The credit for the film's style belongs to Stanley Kubrick, who handles scenes of intimacy and scenes of gigantic sweep with equal attention, illustrating the violence, brutality and corruption of both, the masters and the slaves, raising the question of freedom which justify the human cost...

Kirk Douglas plays Spartacus the idealistic noble slave who believes he must struggle forever against tyranny and just by opposing tyranny he inspires his followers with his example...

Spartacus' character, from a violent primitive rebel who hamstrung a foreman with his teeth, into a gladiator who fought desperately for life in the arena, into a revolutionary able to unite an amorphous mass of slaves and deserters, into a force which succeeded to defeat Rome's best trained armies, into a charismatic leader (with a vision) who forces a long-awaited revolt against the Roman empire...

Two political rivals (Crassus and Gracchus) use the slave uprising threat to manipulate the Roman senate for their own ends:

Crassus (played powerfully by Laurence Olivier) extorts 'a fee,' the dictatorial post of First Consul, Commander of all the legions of Italy as his price for releasing Rome from Spartacus... Crassus sees the defeat of Spartacus' army as a chance for him to seize power of the empire for himself... He tries to make the slaves betray Spartacus... He tries to win the love of Varinia, not merely to possess her, but as a form of victory over Spartacus... In his last confrontation with Spartacus, he is seen losing all his delusions of grandeur as he stands deeply wounded by the total disregard in which Spartacus holds him...

Charles Laughton plays, with expertise, Gracchus, a generous Roman politician, soft and rich, able to get his Julius Caesar (John Gavin) elected leader of the Praetorian Guard to annoy Crassus' ambitions...

The first hour of "Spartacus" contains many of the film's best moments : The operation of the gladiatorial school and its training program is impressive and also expressive... The gladiators school is tough but fair: The men are oiled, bathed, shaved, massaged and trained to fight... They are never allowed to kill... And for their good performances, they are even rewarded with the companionship of a young lady... In this degrading manner Spartacus meets Varinia (Jean Simmons-lovely as ever) and it is his love for her and his hatred for his captors that inadvertently sparks off an uprising and the gladiators break out...

Particularly effective is the scene in which Crassus and his "capricious over-painted nymphs" (Nina Foch & Joanna Barnes) ask to be entertained by the sight of two pairs fighting to the death... The scene summarizes the injustice of the situation, the cruelty of bondage and the insurrection becomes a triumph easy to understand...

Nominated for six Academy Awards, and winning for Cinematography, Costume Design, Art Direction and Supporting Actor—Peter Ustinov. the motion picture contains no chariot races and no orgies but it still imparts the grandeur and the decay of ancient Rome...

With a stirring musical score by Oscar nominee Alex North, "Spartacus," is masterfully directed by Kubrick...

The great director cannot save this film

[funkyfry · 6/10 · 13 February 2007]

Spartacus is one of those movies that's wonderful to look at, but completely lacking in real substance or gravity. As historical entertainment it beats anything on the History channel or for that matter most epics of its type. The production is excellent, some of the best matte work I've ever seen and some very nice costumes and settings.

Then you have a cast which includes some of the great names in film -- perhaps gathered under the concept that the best way to simulate the Roman Empire is to stuff your film with venerable British stage actors. Here we get a U.K. all-star team including Charles Laughton, Lawrence Olivier, Peter Ustinov (and Herbert Lom for bench strength). I thought of the trio the best work was done by Laughton, whose character has surprising dimension. Ustinov does some nice work as well, and I really enjoyed the scene with he and Laughton at the end where they discuss Ustinov's newfound dignity. "Add some courage to that dignity" urges Laughton's character. I think Olivier's character was misconceived, and the attempt to give his character dimension by having him fall in love with Spartacus' wife (Jean Simmons, the female U.K representative, saddled with some of the film's most ridiculous dialog and scenes) falls flat for me. It's not a case of poor acting by Olivier but of poor writing. Kirk Douglas is all swagger as Spartacus. He's a poorly developed character. I can't imagine what they were thinking by giving us a central character in this story of corruption and intrigue who was basically a saint. The character is nothing but a walking Romanesque imitation of Abraham Lincoln, all speeches about human dignity and freedom. He's given a girl to sleep with but it's beneath his dignity to make love to her with the Romans watching -- as if Spartacus would be aware of any other way to do it. Basically the character is a walking anachronism; he's like a 20th Century union organizer dropped into the Roman world.

Most of the blame for this film's failure should fall on Douglas' and Trumbo's heads. It's well documented that the director, Stanley Kubrick, wanted to change some of the dialog but he was not allowed to do so. Perhaps Douglas mistakenly thought that allowing script alterations would dull the glory that he hoped to gain by bringing Trumbo back to Hollywood as a reclaimed "genius". Presumably Douglas' courage in embracing the blacklisted author was supposed to mirror his character's saintly pro-freedom stance. This film emerges as a fable instead of a real story, because no intelligent person could possibly believe that Spartacus had no desire for revenge against the Romans in his heart and that he had somehow sidestepped 1500 years of social and political philosophy to come to a post-Lockian understanding of the essential equality of man. Yet it takes itself far too seriously in the way it presents its history to be acceptable as a historical fable.

Compared to other "epics" of the sword and sandal variety, this is a good film. But that's not saying much IMHO. Compared to other films by Stanley Kubrick, this is an awful film. The only parts that even feel like a Kubrick movie are the battle scenes where you can see Kubrick's love of geometry and strategy in the overhead shots of the columns and phalanxes moving across the field. The gladiator scenes are also well directed though less distinctly "Kubrickian". But there are about a half dozen dialog scenes between Douglas and Simmons and I think this is where the film really bogs down -- although there are other problems such as Tony Curtis' poorly developed poet character. The scene with Olivier and Curtis is just embarrassing. We have this erotic image coupled with wretched dialog about how the Roman likes to eat snails AND oysters. The conversation is played as if it should be subtle but the dialog would only seem subtle to a 10 year old.

I think out of all the muck and drek that this movie presents, the over-arching issue that I have with it is that it presents a morally simplified universe, yet pretends to be morally complex. The film presents absolutely no doubts about the moral righteousness of Spartacus' violent crusade and shows us former slaves who are so docile and get along so well that at times you feel like you're watching a beach party movie instead of a movie about a pre-Christian slave rebellion. One longing for the kind of moral ambiguity found in classic epic films like "Lawrence of Arabia" or Kubrick's own "Barry Lyndon" will be sorely disappointed. This movie is just "pomp and circumstance" -- well done as an action film, but with only the appearance of depth.

Gladiator prequel or sequel

[alansabljakovic-39044 · 8/10 · 3 March 2019]

Another Kubrick's masterpiece and very influential movie in it's genre. Kirk Douglas did great job as Spartacus but for me the best charachter in this movie was Laurence Olivier as Crassus. He brings on of the best villain performances I've ever seen. Spartacus had a lot of influence on Ridley Scoot's Gladiator, from way of acting (especially the similarity between Joaquin Pheonix and Laurence Olivier's character) to the way camera moves and shots are taken. This is truely a great historical film and a classic you should see. It will be hard for me to rank it amongst other Kubrick's films but I will try it (don't get angry if you disagree).

Worthwhile but uneven and poorly paced

[Speechless · 7/10 · 17 November 2000]

For all the praise it's received, I really think Spartacus is a pretty flawed movie. Basically the film's scenes fall into two distinctly different categories. First, there are scenes following Spartacus as he suffers through gladiatorial school, rebels against his tormentors, falls in love, and leads a slave revolt that threatens to topple the power of the Roman empire. These segments succeed in everything they seek to achieve-- they entertain mindlessly and viscerally, and somehow manage to be exciting and predictable at the same time. We all know, for instance, that the mean gladiator instructor is eventually going to get what's coming to him, but we're actually surprised and a little shocked when he finally does. Add an effective score by Alex North, some occasionally touching human drama, and a massive battle sequence that clearly served as inspiration for Braveheart's massive festivals of destruction, and you've got one hell of a movie.

But then someone decided that the film needed about an hour and forty-five minutes of flat, uninteresting, irrelevant, utterly useless political intrigue among the Roman heads of state. Spartacus is one seriously lengthy movie, and during the segments focusing on the senate and the military leaders you can't help but look at your watch a few times. I went along with these scenes at first, but after a while I lost track of all the confusing different political figures and what they were trying to accomplish. I sat trying to figure out who everyone was and how the intrigues affected the Spartacus revolt story and found myself dozing off. Having seen the film again, I now know who everyone is, but I still haven't figured out why all this scheming and plotting is important to the story at all. It's just dead weight that slows the movie down right when it should be reaching escape velocity, and I really wish most of it had been left in the editing room.

I can only half recommend this film. A movie made up of just the Spartacus story along with only a few, essential scenes devoted to the Roman leaders would really have been a true classic. But instead we have a movie that just gets in its own way for just about half of its running time. Good thing Kubrick had more control over the rest of his films...

The greatest battle .. is against time

[A_Different_Drummer · 5/10 · 2 December 2014]

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.

The World of Stanley Kubrick: Director for hire.

[Captain_Couth · 8/10 · 30 July 2005]

Spartacus (1960) was a director for hire gig for Stanley Kubrick. Kirk Douglas was in a pinch for his next film project. He was making an epic film about a slave in the roman republic who rebels against his masters. Anthony Mann stepped down from the director's chair and Mr. Douglas needed someone to take over. Enters Stanley Kubrick. Although he has little creative input (i.e. script and story wise) he manages to make a compelling movie with his keen eye and directorial abilities.

Filmed in a grand scope and in such great detail, Spartacus is eye candy for fans of epic film making. I can only imagine what the film would have been like if he had total control over the project. Kirk Douglas is the man as Spartacus, Tony Curtis is quite good as his sidekick, Charles Laughton is wise and witty as the elder senator, Peter Ustinov is a hoot in his role as the poor victim of fortunate (and unfortunate) circumstance and Sir Laurence Olivier shows why he was the premier actor of his day as Crassus.

Highly recommended for Kirk Douglas fans and Stanley Kubrick philes.

Still haunting after all these years.

[rat_202 · 9/10 · 2 December 2017]

It was a bank holiday. I was ten, and watching Spartacus for the first time. This was before we got a video, so I would basically watch any movie that came on TV. Spartacus was a real shock to me. It was the first film I saw where the good guy doesn't win. in. I had seen Ben- Hur a few weeks before, with it's happy ending - y'know, reunited with his family, miraculously cured of leprosy, everyone lives happily ever after. Spartacus ends with him dying on a cross, having already lost to the Romans. It really affected me. I just didn't know a movie could end like that.

I still loved it. Watching it now, I have tried to break down what it so effective, and why this movie stands up so well. Firstly, let me say - Laurence Olivier. Casting him as Roman General Crassus was a smart move, but a risky one. It could have back fired. He is so good he threatens to steal the whole movie. He doesn't, but as much as this movie is Douglas's it's also Olivier's. There's no denying Ustnov is good, but the Oscar really should have gone to Laurence.

Another great performance is Tony Curtis as Antoninus, Crassus' personal slave, who quickly joins the revolt. He is no fighter, but a singer, though not much of one! I don't remember the 'snails and oysters' scene from my first viewing. It would have gone clean over my head anyway. It's a very touching scene. You feel that if it was done now, in the Game Of Thrones era, it would be considerably more explicit.

And don't tell me Gladiator didn't borrow from this movie! One thing that Gladiator got wrong was the friendship forging between the fighters. When Spartacus asks another slave his name, the guy tells him 'You don't want to know my name. I don't want to know yours. One day we may end up having to kill each other.' It made more sense than Maximus and Juba going on about their wives and children.

Ultimately though, it's that ending that still haunts me many years later. Spartacus, having been forced to kill Antoninus, on a cross, Varinia showing him his son, and begging him to die... I think it actually works because Spartacus doesn't say a word, no last monologue. Man, I'm getting goosebumps just thinking about it.

Stanley Kubrick famously disowned the film, given that he didn't have complete creative control, but Spartacus is still better than practically all the sword and sandal epics being made then, or even now - Troy, anyone? It is acknowledged as a a classic, and deservedly so.

So what if it's historically inaccurate?

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 18 April 2010]

I know my summary may sound opinionated...but I couldn't help being entertained by this film. If I had any complaints it would be there are one or two parts that suffer from uneven pacing and in the latter half especially there are a lot of wordy speeches from Kirk Douglas. That said, it is very well made, with sweeping cinematography, beautiful costumes and well constructed sets. The score is triumphant and bombastic, Kubrick's direction is secure and the script is surprisingly intelligent and knowing. Also the action is brilliantly done, and the performances are to be much applauded, with Kirk Douglas believable and sincere in the title role, Jean Simmons alluring as Varina and Laurence Olivier, Peter Ustinov and Charles Laughton stealing every single scene they are in.

Overall, maybe not Kubrick's very best, but a fine historical epic. 9/10 Bethany Cox

great commentary on DVD

[edimdb-1 · 9/10 · 7 September 2005]

I think the movie is quite good; what I want to add to the comments already made is just this:

The commentary (on the DVD) by screenplay writer Dalton Trumbo is great. Kirk Douglas said it was the greatest analysis of film-making ever. He explains the purpose of every scene, very openly and honestly critiquing the changes the actors made, for (in his estimation) better or worse.

There is another track of commentary by the actors. The actors had an unusual degree of latitude in re-writing their lines and forming their characters.

Fighting the Good Fight

[tedg · 11 December 2001]

Spoilers herein.

For decades, filmmakers have fallen into three camps:

--those that believe film is a simple entertainment medium focused primarily on storytelling

--those who function as artists in what they consider the newest and possibly most powerful art

--those that recognize the other two, but see film as as a means for conveying a message, beit journalism, essay or propaganda

Kirk Douglas was clearly in the third camp. A solid American, this is his personal commitment to liberal American values, seasoned by his zionism. The context was a dangerously paranoid government apparatus that was slipping very close to fascism.

Douglas was a major player at the time, and he is behind what we see here: good and evil; slavery and freedom; the power of a righteous stand. Not only is it explicit in the story, and his performance, but in the way the film was made and the collaborators selected. What makes this a mess is that there is a fundamental mismatch with watching through Kubrick's eye. He was brought in after production started and disowned the film on completion. He is clearly in the `art' camp, possibly America's best example. Incidentally, in recent years Douglas has shifted his membership retroactively to the `mere storyteller' role in a speech to the National Press Club and his book.

Sort of takes the honor out the principled stand, doesn't it?

More Trumbo than Kubrick

[davidmvining · 7/10 · 26 November 2019]

Kubrick dismissed several of his early films from his canon. Fear and Desire makes sense because of its amateurishness while Killer's Kiss has some similar problems (though I feel it's a successful movie overall). Spartacus, though, isn't about quality but more about authorship.

Out of all the feature narrative films Stanley Kubrick, he produced most of and had writing credits on all of them except Spartacus. The history was that Kirk Douglas, as producer, had hired Anthony Mann to direct the film but fired him (for unclear reasons) after a week of filming. In desperate need of a director as quickly as possible, Douglas called up Kubrick, with whom he had made Paths of Glory, and Kubrick took the job. He hadn't written a word and had say in only one casting decision (that of Varinia, a character that hadn't begun filming yet, who was played by Jean Simmons). There is even a story of Douglas asking Kubrick what he thought of the famous "I am Spartacus" scene just before filming it. Kubrick admitted that he thought it was stupid, and Douglas openly berated his director (and, as producer, employee) for the opinion. Notice that this scene was filmed and included in the final cut.

So, I think it's easy to see why Kubrick, who had such complete control of literally every other movie he made, would feel a certain distance regarding Spartacus. It's more of a creative output for Dalton Trumbo and Kirk Douglas than Stanley Kubrick.

So, Spartacus is a curio in the Kubrick filmography. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It's too bright, colorful, and optimistic, and yet it's still good.

The slave Spartacus gets purchased from a salt mine to a gladiatorial school where he learns how to kill. When the Roman senator Crassus visits the Batiatus, the owner of the school, he pays for a pair of to the death combats. This is the spark that leads to the beginning of the slave revolt the next day. Spartacus leads the gladiators to form into an army and raid, pillage, and sweep across southern Italy to a port city where they will pay for ships to carry them away from the Roman Empire.

The movie is at its best when either Crassus, played by Laurence Olivier, Gracchus, played by Charles Laughton, or Batiatus, played by Peter Ustinov, are on screen. They are thankfully center stage for much of the film. Crassus is the personification of Rome at its most dangerous, affluent, and corrupt. A man of no morals, he revels in his power over the world. Gracchus is a man of appetites who revels in the fights of the Roman Senate, countering Crassus with intelligence and wit. Batiatus is a working man who built up his wealth through the creation of his gladiatorial school. He shares a special corpulent bond with Gracchus and the two have some of the most fun written scenes in the film.

Spartacus, unfortunately, is just not that interesting. Once freed from slavery, his drive of necessity is replaced by a gauzy need for freeing slaves. He's purely an idealist of no fault. This is a direct result of Dalton Trumbo's communism. The way he painted Spartacus, as the faultless ideal, was in line with the then socialist artistic norm of portraying what was essentially the New Socialist Man. Douglas liked this because he got to play the hero, but Kubrick thought he was uninteresting and a wash of the more interesting history of the real Spartacus who unnecessarily turned from northern Italy towards Rome to continue raiding instead of escaping like he could. But, as we've already seen, Kubrick had little say on this movie's characters and story.

There are hints of themes that Kubrick had been, and would continue to, dealing with. The first hour at the gladiatorial school is all about the dehumanization of man at the whim of a larger, impersonal, and inhuman system. This falls directly in line with the events of Paths of Glory. The ending of both movies echo each other to certain degrees. In Paths of Glory sees the system win, as it does in Spartacus. However, in the Roman epic, there are hints of optimism as Varinia holds up Spartacus' baby boy to him, pledging to carry on the boy's father's name and cause. That sort of optimism is missing from Paths of Glory, and, really, most of Kubrick's filmography until Eyes Wide Shut, I think.

Where Kubrick was able to shine was in the movie's visual design. He had little say in set construction, costumes, and locations (though he apparently convinced the producers to shoot the famed battle in Spain instead of America), but he had full control of his camera. Compositions carry that intelligent and clear dynamism he was known for. The most striking imagery might be the gladiatorial fight between Spartacus and Draba. In the foreground we see the two in their small box as two others rise, pass through the narrow opening at the center of frame with Marcellus in the middle and Crassus at the top of frame. It's an elegant composition that shows a visualist making the most of the conditions he had.

There are also several action scenes that are surprisingly well filmed. Not that I don't imagine Kubrick had the ability, but the most action he had filmed was the chase in Killer's Kiss and the long tracking shots over no man's land in Paths of Glory. They were nothing like the dynamic and violent action in the gladiatorial fight, the uprising, and, especially, the battle near the end of the film.

In the end, the movie's certainly good, but it's got too many authorial hands moving it in different directions. Instead of William Wyler getting support from producers and star to make Ben-Hur in the best possible way, we had a screenwriter insisting on less interesting characterizations, a producer and star who seemed more interested in making himself look good than telling a story, and a director that couldn't pursue anything like his own vision. It's a compromised film that amazingly works as well as it does.

Brilliant Film, Brilliantly Portrayed

[Buck_Beasom · 10/10 · 19 June 2006]

Until Shakespeare in Love came out, this was my number one movie. It still stands the test of time.

Acccurately described as "The Thinking Man's Epic," this film should be must viewing for everyone who wonders why "progressivism" will never lose its appeal. The villains are brilliant in their belief that "Rome is an eternal thought in the mind of god." (Crassus. He died, by the way, by having molten gold poured down his throat.) And the heroes are united in their belief that "The finest wine comes from home, wherever it is." Spartacus has, in its own way, become almost a cliché - its "I'm Spartacus" lampooned in an Academy Award lead in and the whole movie replayed as Braveheart. (Witness the sound effects as the shields slap into position during the charge. Mel Gibson admitted to stealing it.) But I defy any thinking person to watch the movie and not tear up: at the scene where Spartacus tells his army, "I know that we're brothers. And I know that we're free. WE MARCH TONIGHT." At the scene where he kills Antoninus, with the words, "I love you, Antoninus, as I love the son I'll never see." And at the end scene, where Jean Simmons - transcendently beautiful - shows the dying, crucified hero his son and says, "It's your son, Spartacus. He's free." In an age when we are so willing to trade our freedom in for the illusion of safety, the message of Spartacus - the movie, and the true historical character - will remain forever uplifting.

Stanley Kubrick's Magnus Opus on legend Spartacus couldn't battle out the fact that it came just after Legendary Ben-Hur

[SAMTHEBESTEST · 7/10 · 28 May 2020]

Spartacus (1960) :

Brief Review -

Stanley Kubrick's magnus opus on legend Spartacus couldn't battle out the fact that it came just after Legendary Ben Hur. Maybe Stanely Kubrick is not the man for Magnus Opus and Historical Biopics. Spartacus could have been an epic tale and a legendary motion picture considering the kind of grandeur and topic it had but the fact that Hollywood went too ahead with films like 'The Ten Commandments' and 'Ben Hur' just before Spartacus couldn't let it become so. I am a big fan of Stanley Kubrick and the kind of realistic, brutal films he has made but may be he's not the one who fits in magnum opus genre. This kind of films need different perspective and different cinematic liberty which is lacking here in Spartacus. You see the grandeur in the film but somehow it just doesn't work the way it should work, it doesn't feel big. It just passed by so quickly with lack of cinematic Liberty hence making it look so rough. I remember so many moments from Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments giving me jitters every time i watch them. Every time they look big and thrills me. Here Spartacus lacks it and it also lacks the feel of legend of Spartacus. The man should have been glorified in the film like a Hero, like a legend but he looks so ordinary in the film. The film is about 195 minutes long but more than half of the runtime doesn't focus on Spartacus, it goes on focusing more on Roman politics which was not at all needed in the biopic of Spartacus. There should have been more about Spartacus and then maybe impact would have been more powerful. The film has got positives like Acting, cinematography and technical brilliance but i would have been more happy if all this had been used to glorify the legend in heroic and enormous way. Maybe Ben Hur being too huge and legendary causes me to accept the goodness of Spartacus but what can i do if this film came just an year after Ben Hur. And i don't need to tell you about Ben Hur and it's impact. Spartacus is very good film though, i was expecting a Classic from Kubrick and it didn't happen with this film at least.

RATING - 7/10*

By - #samthebestest

Based on a historical slave revolt in areas controlled by Republican Rome, it is a story of both tragedy and triumph.

[Deusvolt · 10/10 · 11 October 2005]

If you saw the movie, read the book (by Howard Fast) and if you have read the book, see the movie and see that they fit seamlessly together without major deviations.

The most memorable scenes are of course those of the final battle with the eerie and chilling sound of the clink, clink, clink of armor as the Roman infantry marches into intricate battle positions. I believe soldiers of the Spanish army were used as extras for this movie.

The most memorable line is that of Crassus (Olivier) as he impresses upon Antoninus, the slave (Tony Curtis), the strength of the Roman Republic. He gazes at a cohort of soldiers with their massive pilae (spears or spikes)and their bronze shields marching pass his villa at night. "There Antoninus, goes the might and power of Rome. Nothing can withstand it...........how much more a mere boy?" And at that point Antoninus, whom he had been trying to seduce into a homosexual tryst with oblique erotic talk referring to "snails and oysters," escaped to join the rebelling army of slaves led by Spartacus.

Made just as the various civil rights organizations were starting to cohere, one wonders if this epic movie which highlighted the injustice of slavery, had an impact on American society which finally acknowledged and did something about its gross violations of human rights based on skin color.

One of the great epics

[averjee · 7/10 · 12 May 1999]

In 1960, "Spartacus" must have been a stunning achievement - it was one of the most magnificent, intellectual, daring epics since "Gone With the Wind" and dealt with important ideas like freedom and independence as well as spectacle. The unconventional ending denies the hero a happy victory, and he has to take solace in the fact that maybe the world will be better for his children as a result of his achievement.

In 1999, it still holds up well, especially the quality of the battle scenes and the subtle dance of sexual motivations. In particular, there is a key, daring scene which has been restored in the new version (it was cut by censors), where Olivier's Senator Crassus and a slave, played by Tony Curtis, share a bath. In that scene, the complex motivations of Crassus are made clear, and they are way ahead of their time - Crassus confesses, "I like both oysters and snails," and essentially reveals that he is a bisexual who sexual desires are a form of conquest and an outgrowth of his possessive nature.

Unfortunately, I also found to be a very restrained film. Writer Dalton Trumbo suffered at the hands of the Hollywood blacklisters (this is his first screen credit since he was blacklisted more than 10 years before), but he avoids any stirring speeches about freedom and revolution. Frankly, it isn't clear to me why the other slaves are so quick to join Spartacus in his largely personal rebellion, or why they follow him as a leader. The audience has to believe that the individual freedom we enjoy in 20th century America was universally and automatically something that the gladiators were willing to readily die for, on Spartacus' say-so.

Director Kubrick's later works (most notably "A Clockwork Orange") would rebel against authoritarian governments with much more passion than this film. In addition, the relationship between Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) and Varinia (Jean Simmons) is tender but restrained; they fall in love in the opening scenes of the movie even though they never speak, barely ever touch each other and never speak more than three words.

All that said, the film is a remarkable achievement. The performances are all superb, especially Ustinov's sly, Oscar-winning comic performance; Olivier's evil dictator; Laughton's wonderful work; and Simmons and Douglas as well.

The battle scene is one of the most spectacular ever filmed, with over 8,000 Spanish soldiers filling out the ranks of the slaves and the Roman army, in sharp contrast to those all-too-common ancient battle scenes in which fast cutting and close shots fail to create the illusion that the couple of dozen men fighting are two clashing armies.

Rome Epic Roams Too Much

[slokes · 4/10 · 15 July 2007]

"Spartacus" has its moments but feels for the most part like what it is: An overblown epic with too many cooks stirring the pot.

It's shortly before the dawn of the Christian era, and somewhere in the vastness of the Roman Empire, a slave named Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) is forced to become a gladiator, providing kill-or-be-killed entertainment for leisured decadents. Alas, he is pushed too far, and leads a revolt that soon threatens great Rome herself. Will Spartacus lead his people to freedom? Or will the vile Crassus (Laurence Olivier) bring him to heel?

Nominally directed by Stanley Kubrick, for which this was his introduction to the big-time, "Spartacus" is in fact a shining example of limitations, both of the Hollywood star vehicle as art form and the ability of a 1960 film to come to grips with the ancient world. How best to condense the social upheaval of the Third Servile War? Why, how about Kirk and Jean Simmons smooching at a pond!

The film starts off well enough, with Douglas in fine fettle glowering at the camera and everyone else, especially trainer/tormentor Marcellus (Charles McGraw). In a sequence that obviously influenced the later Best Picture winner "Gladiator", Spartacus learns the ropes, makes some friends, and begins to want to do something about the injustice he is experiencing. The first hour concludes in the film's only great moment, a duel between Spartacus and the mysterious Draba (Woody Strode) for Crassus's cruel enjoyment.

Once Spartacus rebels, however, the film goes to pot. Douglas loses the fire while Kubrick loses interest in Spartacus's story, becoming engaged only when the scene shifts to Rome, where the aristocratic Crassus battles with the plebian Gracchus (Charles Laughton) for the city's soul, and Spartacus's former owner Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) finds himself in the unhappy role of political pawn.

Ustinov's performance was the only Oscar-winning one in any Kubrick film, and he's great both as a bridge between the two story arcs and as low-key comic relief, playing off the high dungeon of everyone else. The problem with "Spartacus" is you also have some Golden Turkey performances, too, like those of Simmons, John Dahl, John Ireland, and John Gavin.

Olivier may be the best thing in the film, in those moments when he is at the center of it. Playing Crassus as if he were Roy Cohn in a toga, he plumps quite convincingly as he makes sheep eyes at slave boy Tony Curtis and displays a patriotic narcissism in uncovering his lusts: "There is only one way to deal with Rome, Antoninus. You must serve her. You must abase yourself before her."

Nothing else sticks quite like that (and that only because the restored version on the Criterion DVD put back an excised scene of Crassus and Antoninus in a bath, which explains what the old Roman meant by "abase".) Whenever the movie goes back to Spartacus and company, its hard watching as Douglas smiles a lot and moves through adoring crowds like John F. Kennedy at a campaign stop. We are told a lot of Spartacus's skill as a commander, but the battles all occur off-screen, with the one exception being the final one, a clumsy set-piece that compares badly to the spectacle of less-heralded "sword-and-sandals" pictures.

Not uninteresting, especially as the Criterion DVD includes many commentaries and supplements that enrich the experience of the movie. It's just that for a director of such discipline as Kubrick, "Spartacus" is all over the map. It's no mystery why he largely disowned this film after its release; it really was never his picture in the first place.