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

[–] MrDeltoid77 9 years ago

A year and a half later... I'd like to jump in because this is one of my favorite films of all times.

While it is difficult, particularly if you live outside a major city like New York or Los Angeles, I always recommend seeing these films on the big screen. Epics were made to be seen bigger than life.

I've been around a while so I got to see all the epics mentioned on the big screen and am a big fan of most all of them. El Cid is indeed an under appreciated classic.

2001 in particular is a film that simply doesn't hold up on the small screen. It is an "event" film and needs to be seen in it's full 70mm glory to really be appreciated. At least on first viewing. Once you are a fan, then watching these epics on a smaller screen can still be a fulfilling experience.

I had a friend who told me he finally got around to watching Lawrence of Arabia and hated it. Said it was boring. Couldn't even make it through the first hour. I asked him where he saw it. He told me he watched it on his iPad. I hit him in the head with a baseball bat then dragged him to the Arclight to see it on the big screen. He loved it.

There are very few cinematic experiences as awe inspiring as seeing the Ben Hur Chariot race on a huge screen. That's the sort of epic filmmaking magic that made me fall in love with the movies.

While I appreciate your very well elucidated critique, I would suggest if you ever have the chance to see this film or any of the older films for that matter, on the big screen that you do so. You might find a greater appreciation and involvement in the sheer scope of the productions.

And of course the communal experience, especially with an appreciative film fan audience always elevates the enjoyment for me.

Bridge on the River Kwai
Patton
Gone with the Wind
Dr. Zhivago
El Cid

Sergio Leone Westerns are an incredible experience on the big screen. The intense close-ups towering over you are what make cinema "cinema" and not television.

Keep at it though. There are so many great films out there. I am still discovering a lot of them thanks to TCM.

[–] kurt7825 9 years ago

17 lol. grow up you little bastard

[–] jstang411 9 years ago

Hadn't visited this in a while, replied to one and then re-read.

What IMDb should be about.

[–] OldAussie 9 years ago

It's simply a matter of taste.
You prefer snails to oysters.

"He was a poet, a scholar and a mighty warrior."

[–] jctennant55-892-30458 9 years ago

I too rarely see the new million dollar blockbusters. I got Star Wars: The Force Awakens but have yet to watch it. Many of the films you mentioned are favs of mine with a few thrown in: Failsafe, Manchurian Candidate, The Haunting (1962), Hard Days Night, Lord of the Flies, Barry Lyndon to name a few. I agree in that Spartacus is rather tedious in many spots, long winded speeches by Douglas and over dramatic romantic scenes with Simmons. Thank goodness for Ustinov. He gave a great performance with just the right comedic touches. Many young people could not sit still very long watching Spartacus because it is not non-stop action or blood and guts on an industrial scale.

[–] nammage 9 years ago

It has a high rating because Stanley Kubrick directed it. There are so many goofs in this film, not just technical but historical, it's ridiculous. Now, I understand while they used the historical aspect loosely, and it's more allegorical of the time in which it was made, it still is ridiculous on the "modern" technology used in such a backdrop.

Of course for films, nothing is rarely close to reality but they could at least try...

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

Regarding historical accuracy, there is very little known about the Spartacus revolt. Most is scholarly speculation. Besides, the film is not intended to be an historically precise reproduction in the first place. It's a theatrical drama based on sketchy historical events. You know, like many Shakespearian historical dramas. For pure history (including the inevitable gaps) regarding these events, look for a documentary or read a history written by an historian you respect. For me, it was entertaining, its purpose for being there, and close enough to suspend my disbelief.

[–] nammage 9 years ago

Besides, the film is not intended to be an historically precise reproduction in the first place.

Yeah, I said that. Did you not read my comment:

Now, I understand while they used the historical aspect loosely, and it's more allegorical of the time in which it was made...

While knowledge of Spartacus etc., is limited they didn't even get the basic knowledge of Spartacus correct. Of course, that's probably more the fault of the producers rather than Kubrick but it can't be disregarded.

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

Of course I read your comments. And I'm not looking for a fight, I'm reinforcing what you said, except:

"... they didn't even get the basic knowledge of Spartacus correct."

Mind telling us what that is?

Additionally, I offer this:

"The distinction between historian and poet ..." (in this case filmmaker) "...
is not in the one writing prose and the other verse .... it consists really in this, that the one describes the thing that has been, and the other a kind of thing that might be. Hence poetry is something more philosophic and of graver import than history, since its statements are of the nature rather of universals, whereas those of history are singulars."

Aristotle -- On Poetics

So, I don't think it's anyone's "fault".

[–] nammage 9 years ago

Well, Spartacus was a Thracian, and was born around modern day Bulgaria. Why would his mother name him Spartacus which means "from the city of Sparta"?

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

Okay. So, for my further edification, please tell me how this fact (if it is a fact) applies to the dramatic thread of the film or to our discussion thus far?

Btw, kings of the Thracian Dynasty of Cimmerian Bosporus and Pontus bore the name "Spartacus", as well as a Thracian, "Sparta, "Spardacus" -- according to Wikipedia.

[–] nammage 9 years ago

"... they didn't even get the basic knowledge of Spartacus correct."

Mind telling us what that is?

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

[–] cfwente 9 years ago

Mind you, I'm just guessing here -- but are you not understanding that his mother may have named him after a king or royal house of Thracia? Can you be more specific about what the "basic knowledge of Spartacus" is that the film got wrong? I mean, just for the record? Thanks. You've got me totally confused about what you mean.

[–] brucedgo 9 years ago

There are so many goofs in this film, not just technical but historical, it's ridiculous. Now, I understand while they used the historical aspect loosely, and it's more allegorical of the time in which it was made…

This was not based on history in any respect. It's based on Howard Fast's novel.

...it still is ridiculous on the "modern" technology used in such a backdrop

What are referring to as "modern technology" and "backdrop"?

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

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

Day of the Jackal? That movie is so average.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

[–] Tank-McQuade 8 years ago

Cause u are 17 years old! Shouldn't you be watching big black babes 23?