MovieChat Forums > Spartacus (1960) Discussion > Finally saw it!! And it holds up pretty...

Finally saw it!! And it holds up pretty well!!

posted 12 years ago by indysoul
12 replies | jump to latest

The acting is superb, the story is great, and it's paced pretty well considering it's running time. Like all older movies there's some things you can point out. Like some choppy scene transitions and overly dramatic line delivery. I also felt the score was inconsistent. One scene the score would hold up by today's standards, then another scene it would sound really loud and out of place.

Overall it's a very good movie though. 8/10.

"One of my life goals was to die right here, in my desk chair" - Dwight Schrute

[–] jstang411 12 years ago

It holds up very well indeed. Great direction, writing, cinematography and acting tend to do that. And particularly with hitorical pieces. What could they do better about this one today....use green screen? Guess another option would be to inflect with current social mores, but that would be more on us than those who made this great flick.

[–] April221968 12 years ago

It has Ustinov, Laughton and Olivier. of course it holds up.

[–] aajacksoniv 12 years ago

No the score is one of the best Alex North ever wrote.
It has many unique pieces never duplicated.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 11 years ago

I just watched this again and I can't come up with any complaints.

Bruce Wayne? Why are you dressed up like Batman?

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

My only complaint is I would have liked to see Jean Simmons in several nude scenes.

But beyond that, I am not surprised people seem to think it has held up well. Kubrick films tend to retain a quality that speaks well over time. Even a then very topical, and for some challenging film since it's in black and white, film such as Dr. Strangelove I think has held up well. As does Lolita.

[–] nutsberryfarm 9 years ago

i like how the lines are delivered. you can actually understand what they are saying, and the intonations of what they are trying to say.

🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴

[–] dannieboy20906 9 years ago

But,

Did the socialist people's propaganda make you want to rise up against the fascist capitalist state, rescue the Hollywood Ten, and hang John Wayne?

Obviously, since we never did that, the movie failed at it's primary purpose, right?

Or maybe, in the end, a movie is just a movie and must be judged as such.

Sorry, my post is a clumsy non sequitur. It's just that there is so much about this movie being commie propaganda and it's subtle symbolism. The problem with that is that if Howard Fast (openly communist) and Dalton Trumbo (openly communist) were making propaganda, so what. I am a knee-jerk anti-communist and I just see an adventure movie with a love story subplot (no, you homo-philes, not Laurence Olivier and Tony Curtis. I mean Kirk Douglas and Jean Simmons). I don't want to be confused by communist agit-prop symbolism. Hell, I have trouble finding it, so I can hardly help ignoring it.

I have loved the movie much more in middle age than in my youth. It moved too slowly for my youthful days.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

[–] bnwfilmbuff 9 years ago

I agree with you that this had superb acting by a fabulous cast. I did not like the score. Good movie but fell short of great due to direction and editing and the score imo.

[–] thebigmouth 9 years ago

I respectfully disagree. Watched it again and couldn't finish. More boring than I remembered even. I'm not surprised Kubrick disowned this one.

TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com

[–] bastasch8647 9 years ago

... and Alex North's score is superb! A perfect mix of atonality, quasi-Prokofiev, lush romanticism and percussive slashes. A true classic.

[–] marcag 8 years ago

Just watched for the first time. I thought it was very good 7/10. I really liked the ending. I'm used to everything having a happy ending these days. I did not expect it to end how it did.

[–] bengt_malma 8 years ago

One big reason Kubrick disowned this movie has to be the fact that it wasn't his "baby". After this he lived up to the "auteur"-image, but here he was called in over the weekend after Anthony Mann having been canned, and asked to finish someone else's job.
Another reason would be that he wasn't the only director here - there were five. Olivier, Ustinov and Laughton were all directors in their own right and saw to is to amplify their parts and dialogue, and of course Kirk Douglas being the producer also had a big say.