MovieChat Forums > Spartacus (1960) Discussion > Please explain why I, a 17 year old, did...

Please explain why I, a 17 year old, didn't like it.

posted 11 years ago by WhyNotTheJackal
67 replies | jump to latest

Now before you start mentioning Twilight, quick-cuts, and the awful movie tastes of young people, I must tell you a bit about myself. I have never seen Twilight, I am not a fan of quick-cuts and shaky cam, and I really don't watch that many new "blockbuster" movies. Once Upon a Time in the West, Casablanca, 12 Angry Men, The Dollars Trilogy, The Day of the Jackal, It's A Wonderful Life, The Sting, Sleuth, & The Big Sleep are, among many other "old movies", some of my favorite films. But, I really didn't enjoy Spartacus. Apart from the very sly and witty performances from Peter Ustinov and Charles Laughton, I felt like Spartacus was dated, melodramatic, and slightly tedious. Most of the characters, aforementioned excluded, were weighed down by flat and uninteresting dialogue. The Music was verbose, exaggerated and painfully repetitive. And, the plot, though interesting on paper, was carried out in an almost simplistic manner. Ultimately, any emotion elicited by the film was due to the situation and not the execution. I guess i am wondering why this has such a high rating? An 8.0?
I just don't understand.

Thoughts anyone?

"Alas! poor Yorick. I knew him" Hamlet in Hamlet

[–] IndianaMcClane 11 years ago

There's no explanation needed. You explained why you disliked it, and it's all fair enough. Every film regardless of how popular or unpopular it is held by general consensus is going to have both its fans and detractors. And pretty much everyone (myself included) has one of more or "those films", ones where they disagree with whatever the consensus may be. And either side it entitled to think as they do, and I respect your opinion on this. I however, happen to disagree with you on this film. For reference I myself am 21, and have sometimes been rolled into that "young crowd" category as well.

[–] WhyNotTheJackal 11 years ago

It's a good point you make. Guess I'm reading into it too hard. Amen to your comment about us all having one or more of "those films"

"Alas! poor Yorick. I knew him" Hamlet in Hamlet

[–] jstang411 11 years ago

It might just be that rather than how they did them at the time that the "epic" film design is not for you. Did you watch Gladiator or Braveheart? Those are more recent goes at it.

Or maybe Kubrik's style is not for you. Yes he is acclaimed, but he is a bit pondering. And he got more so over time. Classic yes, but I never found 2001 enjoyable.

[–] WhyNotTheJackal 11 years ago

I actually have not seen Gladiator or Braveheart. Looking forward to watching them in the near future though. As far as epics go, I did really enjoy Ben-Hur. I use that as an example because they are very similar films. To me Spartacus just seemed melodramatic and dated. Nothing to warrant an 8.0 rating.

"Alas! poor Yorick. I knew him" Hamlet in Hamlet

[–] jstang411 11 years ago

Well if you like Ben-Hur it is sounding more like the Kubrik factor. Gladiator and Braveheart I encourage. If you want to go back and test the sixties after.....El Cid is lesser known, but a favorite.

[–] Mbalm 11 years ago

I second you see El Cid - now that is a truly epic picture.

[–] IndianaMcClane 11 years ago

Well, technically that makes a third for El Cid, but the more the merrier right?

[–] jstang411 11 years ago

Us El Cid fans are too far and in between to quibble. Got my first copy of it like 15 years ago on e-bay from some Chinese copy of the Laser disk it first was released on. The quality was absolutely pathetic.....but it was the only way to get it then. Hoping the statute of limitations has expired on that.

[–] IndianaMcClane 11 years ago

I didn't mean anything by it, though I did realize later how stupid my phrasing was. LOL Just meant to be a joke. (I did try to fix the comment though to get the more jovial intent across)

Anyway, on the home video El Cid front, there is none that is worthy at least from what I've seen of for American (Region A) releases. I'd kill for a good Blu-Ray release of it. It is frustrating how obscure it is at this point. And baffling, given that it came out in the heyday/Golden Age of historical epics and starred not only an icon of the genre but one of the medium as well.

[–] jstang411 11 years ago

I am also baffled why it has sunk to such relative obscurity as well. I personally put in the ranks of the great epics and none of those who do not seem to have any real palatable reasons for not doing so. The only persistent criticism I have seen is as to Lauren's acting. I can see why that might not elevate the movie to elite, but hardly a reason to kick the movie into the bottomless pit either.

[–] pp312 11 years ago

Hi. One of the reasons El Cid dropped into a 'bottomless pit' has to do with distribution. It was a Samuel Bronston production, but was taken over by The Rank Organisation some time in the 60s, and since then, apart from a re-release in the early 90s (on the back of Ben-Hur and Spartacus re-releases), and of course cropped TV showings, seems to have sunk from sight. Fortunately there is now a Blu ray which, though I haven't watched it all, seems very nice--certainly better than anything up till now. I agree this is a film that deserves better treatment than it's had. I've always ranked it third after Ben-Hur and Spartacus and certainly the best of the Samuel Bronston films (though I have a soft spot for King of Kings for all its faults). Let's hope it becomes more appreciated with the passage of time.

[–] jstang411 11 years ago

Thank you for that background on the business snafus concerning El Cid.

Explains why the only time in my life I bought a pirated version of anything was to get that movie. I was more than willing to buy it at full price, but that was the only way to get it. I was asking myself, "how can this great movie not be out on DVD"? You just gave me the answer to that question from years ago.

[–] beresfordjd 9 years ago

I was a huge fan of epic movies like The Ten Commandments,The Robe, Spartacus and Ben-Hur all of which I have seen again and again. I adore Sophia Loren and I used to like Charlton Heston (before the NRA crap). But I hated El Cid - it was overlong, extremely bloated and beyond boring. So I would NOT recommend it. I would not recommend Braveheart either as I cannot hardly remember it- quite unimpressive. Gladiator is another thing - I remember when I read that Ridley Scott was making a sword and sandals film, I thought it was the worst of bad mistakes but when I saw it , it blew me away!

[–] jstang411 9 years ago

But I hated El Cid..... I would not recommend Braveheart either

Clearly the taste for Epics is not a one-size fits all endeavor. Those are two of my favorites, and was never a fan of The Ten Commandments.

[–] brainbiter 9 years ago

Why would you endorse Braveheart save as anti-English propaganda? Is Gibson still alive and, if so, why?

[–] IndianaMcClane 11 years ago

I hope you enjoy them. (Though it's interesting to note that both Braveheart and Gladiator do take a good amount of influence/inspiration from Spartacus so it may be interesting for you to see how you feel they compare) Naturally just keep in mind that neither is going to be a history lesson and take a lot of deviations. (The biggest gripes their detractors seem to have with them) However I am of the opinion both work very well in terms of storytelling and filmmaking. (Though naturally that's just in my own opinion. Mind you I really like Spartacus, so perhaps you'll see those two films differently as well. LOL) Anyway, when you do Gladiator though I'd recommend you keep your eye open for the extended version. Even though I'm pretty Ridley Scott has gone on record of saying he preferred the theatrical cut, the lengthened version fills in some story gaps that you may not think about while watching the theatrical version. With two characters in particular (though I won't say who in case of spoilers) really benefitting from some of their cut scenes being restored. And if you're interested in it, I will second jstang411's recommendation for Anthony Mann's El Cid starring Charlton Heston. Which in my opinion, is woefully underrated/obscure at this point and a top shelf entry into the "Epic" genre.

[–] joekiddlouischama 11 years ago

As far as epics go, I did really enjoy Ben-Hur. I use that as an example because they are very similar films. To me Spartacus just seemed melodramatic and dated.

Yes, we pretty much see Ben-Hur versus Spartacus the same way, so your being seventeen doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.

It's good, though, that you have the kind of humility and awareness where you realize that your age, relative lack of experience, and potential for inherent generational bias could be causing you to miss something that older, more experienced viewers appreciate. Being aware of one's potential biases or vulnerabilities is a sign of maturity and intelligence.

But in this case, and probably many others, you just have a good feel for things (at least from my vantage point). That's not to say that Spartacus is without value or that people should be faulted for loving it, but you're more than justified in finding the film highly flawed.

[–] spkeck 9 years ago

You have to watch Gladiator and Braveheart lol.

[–] Rueiro 11 years ago

"Spartacus" is rather different from all of the other epics made by Hollywood at that time, if you have seen "Quo Vadis" and "Ben-Hur", for example. "Spartacus" has a cast of Thespians who basically are stage-acting for three hours, and then there is little action regarding large battle scenes and duellings of the sort we always expect to see in this kind of films. And Stanley Kubrick's trademark style of long static takes with the actors talking for ages doesn't help much to speed the action either. Kubrick is one of the greatest directors of all time but he was a fish out of water here, as he himself admitted later, and he didn't like making the film.
Nevertheless, "Spartacus" is a great film that I have always liked very much. You can give it a second try sometime. It often happens that our perception changes as we get older.

[–] Strangerhand 11 years ago

I'm not going to tell you why you didn't like the film. You gotta figure that one out, man. Then you'll tell others why you didn't like it.

[–] Man_Who_Lived_Twice 11 years ago

Who cares if you didn't like it? On your list, I've never warmed up to Once Upon a Time in the West and think The Big Sleep is a semi-worthless mess. Yet Leone and Hawks remain a couple of my favorite filmmakers.

It's OK not to like what everybody else likes.

[–] Bluedusk 11 years ago

Kubrick himself didn't like this film too much either, so be reassured.
I think it deserves an 8/10 because we're speaking of the Kub, so it can't get less. But it's a studio movie, not Kubrick's artwork. This said, you'll find many inventions in this film that Kubrick will use to a better effect in his later films, like the large battle scenes in Barry Lyndon.
You'll also find influence on more recent films and TV shows like HBO Rome, Spielberg's Band of Brothers, etc.
Placed between Paths of Glory and Dr Strangelove that are two masterpieces, Spartacus is a commercial studio production that made Kubrick decide he'd never do it again. Pretty much like David Lynch's Dune.

[–] joekiddlouischama 11 years ago

I think it deserves an 8/10 because we're speaking of the Kub, so it can't get less. ... This said, you'll find many inventions in this film that Kubrick will use to a better effect in his later films, like the large battle scenes in Barry Lyndon.

What other "inventions" would you cite?

Regardless, I don't know that Kubrick really brought much more to Spartacus than a run-of-the-mill director would have done. The film, in my opinion, is mechanical, turgid, and telegraphed, heavy-handed and pretty much a paint-by-numbers type of deal. There's little in the way of finesse, reflection, or room for genuine character development and thematic exploration, as the movie becomes a prisoner to plotting, epic staging, and simplistic concepts. Of course, Kubrick did not enjoy ultimate control here, but aside from some memorable (not necessarily great) scenes and moments, Spartacus strikes me as extremely perfunctory.

[–] Bluedusk 11 years ago

"Turgid" means "sexually healthy".
As for character development (or any form of psychology), please name one Kubrick film that has any sort of.
Well, there's one: Hal the computer in 2001.
Kubrick's cinema is objective and iconic, and Spartacus features its share of iconic moments, going crescendo to the final scene that works pretty much like Bresson's films: the entire movie serving to give an iconic meaning to the last sequence.

[–] joekiddlouischama 11 years ago

"Turgid" means "sexually healthy".

Are you being ironic? "Turgid" can possess a sexual connotation, but the dictionary definition (according to the The Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, second edition), is "1. swollen; inflated," and "2. (of language) pompous; bombastic." There are no explicit references to sexuality.

You can also see the Dictionary.com definitions and sentence usage here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/turgid?s=t

As for character development (or any form of psychology), please name one Kubrick film that has any sort of.

I would suggest that there is significant character exploration in The Shining, albeit in an ironic, stylized, unconventional sense.

and Spartacus features its share of iconic moments

Yes, that's pretty much what I meant when I wrote that Spartacus offers some memorable moments and scenes.

the entire movie serving to give an iconic meaning to the last sequence.

I suppose, but that paradigm can also serve as an excuse for long stretches of mediocre filmmaking.

What else might you be suggesting here? That Spartacus is a pre-Christ figure? That his baby will turn out to be Christ, which would mean that Spartacus was God?

But I think that the preceding three hours could have served such subtexts and symbolism more slyly or effectively.

[–] WhyNotTheJackal 11 years ago

My thoughts exactly. Simplistic and heavy-handed are word/phrases that came to my mind.

"Alas! poor Yorick. I knew him" Hamlet in Hamlet

[–] nitrateprint 11 years ago

I think you're supposed to watch A Clockwork Orange when you're 17.

[–] thready85 11 years ago

Every movie from the 50s and 60s was melodramatic. Every hero in these movies was a wise leader. Ben Hur, Planet of the Apes, Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, they all had a hero who apparently had a master's in philosophy.

[–] pp312 11 years ago

Sorry, but that's just too silly to let pass. Every leader had a Masters in philosophy? Spartacus is supposed to be illiterate, and is depicted as a simple (but not simple-minded) man throughout the film. Ben-Hur is a prince of Jerusalem and thus well educated, but constantly struggles to understand and control the things that are happening to him. Lawrence was historically a very educated man but again, is conflicted throughout the film and in one memorable scene (where a soldier on a motorcycle repeatedly calls to him, 'Who are you?') is shown to not understand himself at all. And Planet of the Apes--where does that even come in here? And to say that every movie in the 50s/60s was melodramatic--come on! What you mean is that movies were far less flippant back then, that events and characters were taken more seriously and that people reacted to crises not with a throwaway joke as now but with the sort of emotion real people would likely have shown.

[–] blisteringlogic 11 years ago

Believe it or not, there are some people who didn't care for it when it was out in theaters 54 yeas ago... Nice to see that there are young'uns who can still appreciate older cinema. If you haven't already, you ought to check out "The Great Escape", ooh, and "African Queen".

[–] WhyNotTheJackal 11 years ago

Haven't seen African Queen. Definitely will see that some time. The Great Escape is a movie I've seen over and over again. Love every second of it.

"Alas! poor Yorick. I knew him" Hamlet in Hamlet

[–] joekiddlouischama 11 years ago

Well, I much preferred Spartacus when I first saw it nineteen years ago, at the age of fourteen. So there you go ...

Whether or not you like Spartacus won't necessarily be an 'age' question. I find Ben-Hur (1959) to be a very good film; I think that Gladiator (2000) is entertaining yet merely decent; and I would take Gladiator over Spartacus (1960).