उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) has been a slave since the age of thirteen. He is among a handful of slaves selected by the Roman Lentulus Batiatus (Peter Ustinov) to be trained as gladiators. (I absolutely loved Peter Ustinov in the role of Batiatus; he was fabulous!)

Slaves are treated like animals, and those in power have no feelings for them whatsoever. They would have slaves kill each other purely for entertainment. Spartacus makes friends with the slaves, and when an opportunity arises, they overpower the guards and manage to escape. Now, the slaves are building their own army in revolt against the Romans.

Laurence Olivier stars as Crassus, a wealthy Roman senator and the film's main protagonist. Jean Simmons stars as Varinia, also a slave and the love interest of Spartacus. I enjoyed the developing romance between Spartacus and Varinia. The film follows Spartacus as he builds his army and plans to avenge the Romans, even if it seems impossible to fight against such a mighty power.

From all the costumes to the magnificent sets and thousands of extras, 'Spartacus' is an incredible production. In a time before CGI, the scale of the production is jaw-dropping! The film apparently had a cast of 10,500 members (with all the extras). Today the extras would simply be added with CGI in post-production. And this is why I enjoy older movies so much; it was real film making. On every level, 'Spartacus' is a film of epic proportions. It's hard to believe this film was made more than six decades ago!!

If I had to compare 'Spartacus' to more recent films, movies like 'Gladiator', '300', and the TV series 'Rome' comes to mind.

"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.

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

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...

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.

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).

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.

This is, by far, the greatest movie ever made about the ancient world, in part, because it centers itself around a still topical subject: slavery. It's a subject society continues to grapple with and which continues to inspire political debates and public demonstrations of intense emotion. The screenplay by blacklisted writer Dalton Trumbo was an adaptation of a novel by blacklisted novelist Howard Fast, who had to self-publish the book. Produced by a man of uncommon courage, Kirk Douglas, it relates the story of a man of uncommon courage, the Roman slave, Spartacus, played by Kirk Douglas. Nearly shut down by the American Legion and their political allies, one of our most courageous Presidents, John F. Kennedy, gave it his public blessing when it opened in Washington, DC. The gladiatorial combat and battle scenes are very suspenseful and perfect in execution. The art direction, 70mm design, Russell Metty's cinematography and a great score by Alex North insures a fascinating 197 minutes, that fly right by. The casting is perfect as are their performances. Only a heart of stone would fail to be moved by the final scene.

Spartacus, although far from the best Stanley Kubrick film, can still hold its grandeur compared to the average films released during this era. The most prominent aspect of the film that I love is its often successful use of practical effects. Practical effects involving crowds really captures the vastness expanse of the environment and sometimes the stakes of the situation, as being shown during Spartacus' final speech and the combatant's march before the final battle.

In terms of writing, the flow of the film is perfect for me. The runtime is technically long but there are no noticeable dragging sequences in its duration. The march before the final battle might look dragging to some, but for me, its tediousness adds a significant tension to the ensuing encounter. Another good facet of the film's writing is the Spartacus-Antoninus dynamic. The 2 character's personality fits perfectly, one being a rigid battle-tested brawn while the other being a calculated artist-scholar brain. This type of character dynamic is not new to films but in Spartacus' case, it is very natural and subtle, unlike other films that forcefully shove their characters' inter-personal mechanisms to viewer's throats.

When it comes to acting, Peter Ustinov being Batiatus brings home the bacon for me. There are no bad performances across the casts but Ustinov is the greatest among them by a wide margin. He manages to masterfully convey a very complicated character that hosts several range of motives and emotions throughout the film.

But in my opinion, there are still some aspects of the film that drags it down beneath perfection. The most evident for me is the lack of internal conflict inside the rebel army. During their march through Italy, after Spartacus takes charge, all the rebels seem to always agree with one another. No one opposed their leader, which looks unrealistic to me. Or if there's no internal opposition, at least show to the viewers the hardships the rebel army endured during the expedition such as their scavenging of food, battling with the harsh climate or even exhaustion or lack of morale to some slaves. Without these internal conflicts, the rebellion seems like it's all sunshine and rainbows, which is far from the truth.

This first concern springboards to my second issue which is the lack of characterization among Spartacus' generals. If only the writers fleshed out Spartacus' rebel comrades a bit more, it could at least create internal subplots inside the rebel camps.

My last concern, albeit minor, is a potential plot-hole during the Spartacus-Antoninus duel. Why did the 2 slaves didn't just slit their throats instantly? Both of them will die on the spot so none would be crucified. It's probably due to gladiator honor or whatever.

So with all things considered, I think that this film is more than your average money-grabbing product. Baring a few weak characterizations and unfulfilled potential conflicts that could make the story better, Spartacus is still a joyful spectacle that can be recommended to anyone if they could spare approximately 3 hours of their lives watching it.

A famed masterpiece and marvellous epic version about Spartacus life that won 4 Oscars, containing exciting drama and overwhelming battles featuring thousands of real extras. The true story of a gladiator who leads other slaves in a rebellion against the power of Rome in 73 BC. This is the classic version about the true story of gladiator Spartacus. At the beginning , the Thracian slave laboring in harsh rock, when he's purchased by obese Battiatus (Peter Ustinov). Brought back to Capua in a gladiator's school, he meets corpulent gladiator named Draba (Woody Strode) and falls in love with Varinia, a gorgeous slave (Jean Simmons). He escapes and stirs up all gladiators and slaves in a revolt (73 B. C.) against the power of Rome .After various generals are vanquished , the rebellion is put down by Crassus (Laurence Olivier) who confronts with wily old senator Gracchus (Charles Laughton). Spartacus actually died in battle and his body was not found. Electrifying Excitement!. The Electrifying Spectacle That Thrilled the World!. Human Desires so Strong they changed the course of History...of a Rebellion that shook a Civilization in a Pagan era, 71 B. C....the grandeur and might of Rome and the challenge of an immortal gladiator...of a love that changed the world.

Spartacus history, based on Howard Fast's novel, is imaginatively brought to life on groundbreaking frames with great production values, outstanding scenarios and Kubrick's control of the massive battles is commendable. Sword cross, drama, gladiators fights abound in this spellbinding adaptation on audacious Spartacus existence, one of the most rebels in the history. Kirk Douglas, whose political leanings are amply on display herein, also served as executive producer , surrounding himself with best talent available. Magnificent climatic battle scenes, featuring 8.000 real, live Spanish soldiers to stunning effect. It is a fitting description of Spartacus character, and it doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence. But it is in the observation of human detail and in many memorable little scenes when the film gets splendor. The picture score most heavily over other epics and in which it finds an inner strength. It's all immensely grand, though predictable , but also its predictability is redeemed in part by the charismatic performances of excellent starring with flawless portrayals and all around with the best talent available. Jean Simmons as Varinia , Charles Laughton as Gracus Peter Ustinov as Batiatus, John Gavin as Julius Caesar, Nina Foch, John Ireland, Herbert Lom, John Dall, Charles McGraw, all do commendably craftsmanlike work. A version featuring Kubrick's 'director cut' is nowadays available featuring a restored, controversial homoerotic bath scene wit Laurence Olivier and Tony Curtis. It contains a rousing and pulsing musical score by Alex North. As well as impressive cinematography in mighty 70mm and on the Giant Panoramic Screen by Russsell Metty with colorful images when the rebels are defeated and crucified along Via Appia, in a sea of crosses silhouetted against a sunset. The film was excellently directed by Stanley Kubrick that gave much-desired financial independence. Anthony Mann is uncredited as co-director.

The Spartacus life was previously adapted in 'Spartacus' (2004) by Robert Dornhelm with Goran Visnjic, Ben Cross, Angus McFayden, Ian McNeice, Rhona Mitra, Alan Bates. 'Spartacus' (1952) by Riccard Freda with Massimo Girotti and Ludmilla Tcherina. 'The son of Spartacus'(1962) by Sergio Corbucci and with Steve Reeves and a silent adapatation Espartaco (2013) by Giovanni Enrico Vidali . And TV series 'Spartacus , Blood and Sand' (2010-2013) with Liam McIntyre, Erin Cummins, Lucy Lawless, John Hanna. The movie will appeal to people enthusiasts for historic deeds and epic feats.

"Spartacus" is an epic tale of rebellion and freedom, set against the backdrop of ancient Rome. Kirk Douglas delivers a powerful performance as Spartacus, a Thracian slave who leads a revolt against the oppressive Roman Empire. Directed by Stanley Kubrick, the film is a sweeping epic that combines thrilling action with deep emotional resonance. The supporting cast, including Laurence Olivier as the formidable General Crassus and Peter Ustinov as the scheming Batiatus, adds layers of complexity to the story. The film's themes of freedom, justice, and the struggle against tyranny resonate strongly, making "Spartacus" not just a gripping historical drama, but also a timeless exploration of the human spirit.

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.

"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.