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

[–] joekiddlouischama 11 years ago

The Dollars Trilogy

Since that's not an official title, it would just be "the Dollars trilogy" ... FYI.

The Music was verbose, exaggerated and painfully repetitive.

I don't think that non-lyrical music can be "verbose," but I agree that it was pretty bad here. You can find my thoughts in the "Best Score Ever Written?" thread.

I guess i am wondering why this has such a high rating? An 8.0?

... same reason why Titanic has a 7.7 'rating' (although I believe that judging movies on a numerical basis makes no sense).

Most likely, Spartacus' rating is slightly higher due to the added influence of nostalgia and the lack of a backlash.

[–] manage-932-700755 10 years ago

That's show business. I was 16 years old when the movie first appeared anjd I saw it and then and loved it. I like it just as much today. I don't know why you don't like it and wouldn't wanrt to speculate. I notice you like "12 Angry Men;" that is my all time favorite film. I like "The Sting" also. On the other hand, I've never been a big fan of "Casablanca." Some films you like and some you don't or like less. That's show business.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phillipsdan83 10 years ago

I'm pushing 50, but I despise GONE WITH THE WIND and never warmed up to 2001, A SPACE ODYSSEY, though I DO like SPARTACUS and FULL METAL JACKET. I think the OP laid out his reasons just fine. Different people have different tastes.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WhyNotTheJackal 10 years ago

Thanks for the feedback! Yeah, I guess my dislike for it is purely personal taste. Dislike is probably too strong a word though. It certainly hasn't turned me of of Kubrick. I look forward to watching the rest of the Kubrick films in chronological order. As for know, I am looking for a DVD or Blu-ray edition of The Killing that is displayed in the intended 1.66 aspect ratio. For some reason all the streaming/downloading versions are all 1.37. That seems to be a problem with Kubrick film editions. Also, thanks for the recommendations. Great Escape is a favorite that I have seen countless times. It's just such an entertaining movie. Since my initial post I have seen both Gladiator and Braveheart. I found both of them to be very compelling and beautifully filmed. Great examples of epic storytelling. El Cid, The African Queen, and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre are all in my "Watchlist." You can't go wrong with Humphrey Bogart!

"Harry?"

[–] jstang411 10 years ago

I'm glad you enjoyed both Gladiator and Braveheart. Seems epics aren't a problem. And you are still interested in Kubrick. Have you done the internal analysis in light of those to figure out what it was about Spartacus that didn't hit with you.

Just curious, nothing more (it is a favorite of mine, as are the others you enjoyed....including the Great Escape).

[–] WhyNotTheJackal 10 years ago

Gladiator was especially good. Probably the best revenge film I've ever seen. After contemplating Braveheart for a while, I have become more of a detractor than a fan. The production values were excellent but, in my opinion, the whole plot was rather melodramatic. Wallace's character and motivations were much too obvious and did not leave much room for nuance, moralizing, or character development. It is also very evident that Gibson made the film just because he knew he looked cool chopping off heads. It is probably a little hypocritical of me to criticize Braveheart seeing that Gladiator is guilty of all the same charges. Gladiator somehow just really worked. The setting, the production design, the action sequences, the cinematography, the acting, the intrigue, and the story all came together for a extremely compelling revenge film.

Since watching Spartacus, I have watched both 2001 and The Killing. 2001 was like nothing I have ever seen before. Very puzzling. I am looking forward to watching it again. The Killing was less remarkable than 2001 but nevertheless a very good film. Quentin Tarantino cited it as a major influence on Reservoir Dogs. It makes perfect sense once you watch the film. I look forward to watching more Kubrick films and will certainly re-evaluate Spartacus. As of right now, I still feel pretty much the same way about Spartacus. Spartacus seemed a little distant. Not necessarily a feel that is ideal for an "epic" film. The dialogue and most of the acting was rather wooden, in my opinion. It almost seemed as though Kubrick didn't get interested in the story and just went through the motions. The soundtrack is another aspect of the film that I disliked. Being a pianist myself and having been exposed to a vast amount of classical music, I am incredibly picky when it comes to soundtracks. In this case, I found the soundtrack to be a little bombastic, repetitive, and over-dramatic. That being said, there were aspects of the film that I appreciated. Primarily, the performances of Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov. Both of them were excellent and shared some wonderful scenes together. Ultimately, I didn't hate the movie but am a little puzzled why it is deemed a classic and still holds lasting appeal. Everybody obviously has different tastes so I totally respect anybody who likes this film.

I have acquired a digital copy of El Cid and am looking forward to watching it. I am a big Charlton Heston fan. I also watched Rob Roy recently. If you haven't seen already seen it I would highly recommend a viewing. In 1995, Hollywood produced two very different Scottish historical epics: Braveheart & Rob Roy. While Mel Gibson was cleaving heads in Braveheart, Liam Neeson quietly contemplated honor and morality in Rob Roy. As of right now, Rob Roy is probably my favorite "epic" film. It was more of a period drama that contained a little action instead of an action film that contained a little drama. The movie was well plotted and the script was very intelligent. It is the only "epic" I have watched so far with believable, interesting dialogue. Liam Neeson and Jessica Lange were both given marvelous three-dimensional characters and they certainly made the most of them. Roger Ebert's review really highlights the movie's strengths.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/rob-roy-1995

[–] jstang411 10 years ago

Thanks for sharing all your thoughts on those. Putting all the interesting comments together and pulling out a theme from the mash.....further proof that movies are exceptionally personal. And that especially goes because we are talking about big names within one specific gendre, which with your exploration shows we are both fans of.

Case in point is Spartacus is top 2 for me along with Braveheart and El Cid. Could be I like visuals and the emotional grab more than you. Rob Roy, I found a bit cold and more relatively rote....even if liked it enough to buy the DVD (but then I like my epics).

Might be why one of my favorite "epics" is Highlander.

I give you much credit for thinking and introspection concerning the flicks though. That should stand you well going through life.

[–] WhyNotTheJackal 10 years ago

Yes, it certainly has been a very interesting discussion. Thanks for contributing. Like you said, it really all boils down to personal opinions. I am glad I asked the initial question as it has inspired me to watch more Kubrick and explore the world of "epic" filmmaking.

I have heard crazy things about "Highlander." I'll have to check that out sometime.

To conclude, here some obscure epics I'd recommend just in case you have not already seen them:

Henry V (Kenneth Branagh, 1989) . . . Might be a stretch to call it an "epic" but nevertheless it is an amazing film.

Cromwell (Ken Huges, 1970) . . . This film is guilty of idolizing Oliver Cromwell when history tells us he clearly doesn't deserve it. Still, it is a well-made, well-acted film that has great production values. The battle scenes are well staged and the political intrigue is engaging. I'd give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Duelists (Ridley Scott, 1977) . . . Ridley Scott's first feature length film. This is a very, very engrossing film with a unique visual style. Scott revealed in the extras that the visual style tried to imitate the naturalistic paintings of the time period depicted in the film. Again, it is maybe a stretch to call this film an epic, but it certainly contains many of the ingredients: historical wartime setting, violent rivalry, and thrilling, realistic sword fights. It is also worthy of mention simply because Scott went on to direct so many more historical films. My only complaint is Keith Carradine's rather stiff, gawkish performance.

Regards,

WhyNotTheJackal

[–] jstang411 10 years ago

Have seen The Duelists, and a great description of it. Been long enough that I might revisit. Henry Five and Cromwell.....I've added to my Netflix.

And since the name got me thinking of it, this is a series that I have become intrigued by. It is not an epic, but it is so nuanced and brilliant (historical too). You sorta have to get used to the low-key presentation of the storyline, but once you do it is fascinating.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3556920/?ref_=nv_sr_1

And keep in mind I was kidding about Highlander being an epic (more making a point about my tastes), but it is a completely out in the open guilty pleasure.....and there are some commonalities.

[–] Pzachlen 9 years ago

Nothing has or ever will come close to the brilliance of BEN HUR. People go GAGA over Kubrick because they are soppose to. Glad you have a mind of your own.If you really want to see stunning emotional film making, try to find a letterbox dvd of a film titled THE MUSIC LOVERS.It is a roller coaster ride which critics at the time 1972 were not able to handle the style and were offended by the fact it was a biography.

[–] TheHeck 10 years ago

I believe I can understand the way you feel. You know, when I was your age I disliked Tango music and my grand parents loved it so they often played those records. I just couldn't relate to the feeling and character of the music and I though "it sucked" and couldn't image ever liking it.
Now that I'm older and having lived through many things both good and bad in my life I can related more to the music and find it quite nice. Special even.

My point is that just because you don't like this movie now doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with you or your generation per-se. It just means that you have no taste for it.

Spartacus is a movie from the 60's. An era very different from now. Movies were made with a different audience in mind back then. I'd say give it a try in like 15 years again. You might be surprised!

Take Care.

I came, I saw, I laughed, I left.

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

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?

This part of your post really interested me.

And, the plot, though interesting on paper, was carried out in an almost simplistic manner.

If you would please explain this a bit more.

And like some of the others have said here, no film, no matter how popular, is going to be liked by everyone. I for example, think that Kubrick's film 2001: A Space Odyssey, was just about the most boring, and utterly pointless film I ever have seen. I had to struggle through it, finally finishing it after two or three tries. When I mentioned my view over on the 2001 board, it actually made some people angry. There is another film, the 1994 ABC-TY mini-series, The Stand, that is one of my all-time favorite films, yet others on that board said they had to struggle through it.

So, in the final analysis, whether a particular film is good or bad, is all a matter of opinion.

[–] Brigante1803 10 years ago

I wonder the OP enjoys Ben-Hur but not Spartacus.
He wrote: " 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."

Well, for me these points apply on Ben-Hur. Spartacus is better-paced, more exciting and there are more scenes, which make me always cry:
1) Spartacus yells he's not an animal
2) "I am Spartacus!"
3) Spartacus has to kill Antoninus
4) Final scene, Varinia meets Spartacus the last time, while he's dying.

The film has no happy ending, even if there is a drop of hope for Varinia and the son. But it is so sad. The rest lost the fight for freedom, only death is their freedom.

Ben-Hur, anyway, got revenge and his sister also got cured.

Also, Spartacus has the better acting and the better ensemble.
Ben-Hur has ONLY Charlton Heston! Ok, Jack Hawkins until his death. But Stephen Boyd, never really liked his acting.

Spartacus...so many good actors! Even the supporting cast, John Gavin, John Dall...fabolous.

So, for me it is a small wonder, why the OP doesn't understand the imdb rating, which in my opinion ist far too low ;-)

[–] brucedgo 9 years ago

Wow! You really loaded up the spoilers there. Seems like most people would want to see a movie without first knowing what happens.

Timmie, if you don't bring that rocketship back this instant, you'll get the spanking of your life!

[–] kurt7825 10 years ago

who *beep* cares you whiny little b*tch