ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

LastingAware The greatest movie ever!

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

qormi Goran Visnijic really isn't up to carrying a movie, and when you're playing a strong role like Spartacus, you need to do more than brood. The storyline was much better than the theatrical version starring Kirk Douglas. If it only had the budget of that version, it would have been much better. This story is a spectacle, and it needs to be told with a cast of thousands. Still, it had shockingly real moments and avoided the platitudes and preachiness of its 1960 counterpart. The film's strongest point was that it closely followed "The True Story of Spartacus", as shown on the History Channel. It was made for television and had to stay within a small budget, but they did convey the struggle accurately, but lacking the drama of a true historical epic. The story of Spartacus is one that needs to be told on a grand scale. This version had its moments, but cried out for stronger characters and a bigger budget. It was more brutally honest than the Kirk Douglas version, but it ultimately came off as a rough draft rather than the final product.

Boba_Fett1138 Well, honestly did you expected this made for TV-version to be better than the Stanley Kubrick 1960 movie starring Kirk Douglas? Fact is that for a TV-movie this one is about as good as they can get! It's a well made one that is also good looking. What a nice surprise this movie was!I understand it needed to be sellable as a two part or more TV-movie, but that doesn't take away the fact that some of the sequences remain overlong. It also takes a whole for the movie to really start off. I understand the movie wanted to show a lot of gladiator moments, of course especially considering the success of "Gladiator", but nevertheless it takes longer then really necessary. Also toward the end the movie tends to be overlong in parts.It's a well directed movie, that creates a nice balance between the action of the movie and the more personal dramatic and political aspects. Even though the movie is overlong at times, the movie still at all times remains a well paced one. Director Robert Dornhelm has lots of experience directing made for TV-movies and he has some good vision and obviously knows what he is doing. I'm interested at what he can do with more resources and a bigger budget.The movie is definitely good looking and by no means cheap or clumsy, as you most likely would expect from a made for TV-movie about the story of Spartacus. OK the special effects to recreate large Roman cities obviously aren't the greatest but for instance it's no worse than in a "Rome"-episode. The movie has some surprisingly large and good looking battle sequences. Also the entire choreography of the sword-fighting is done in a great way. The movie also isn't afraid to show blood and violence, something TV-movies are normally reluctant to show.Goran Visnjic was a surprising good choice for the main lead. He at first hand doesn't seem like the most logical or best choice but he handles the lead really well and is believable in the action sequences as well. The entire cast is filled with mostly TV-actors, but this by no means mean that the acting in this movie is below par. On the contrary really.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

stevec-35 The 1960 version of Spartacus remains one of the best historical epics ever made but this new film rates very well beside it. It is more historically accurate and much more faithful to the original Howard Fast novel on which both films were based.All the actors did a good job. Goran Visnvjic was an effective Spartacus and Rhona Mitra a feisty Varinia very much in keeping with the book. Alan Bates is at his best in the role of a senator playing a behind the scenes role in trying to stop Crassus in his drive for power over the Roman state. I was least impressed by Angas Macfadyen in the role of Crassus although it's still a competent performance. I guess that Lawrence Olivier who played Crassus in the 1960 movie is a hard act to follow.The battle scenes are competently performed but the armies look much smaller than the historical record said they were. I guess the original Spartacus had more money to spend on extras. A long standing wish of mine is for a Roman epic to get the armor right. The Roman soldier of this period wore short mail shirts and used oval shields. The segmented armor wasn't introduced until about a century later.I couldn't fault the history. Everything seems to be done right, from the first battle when the slaves abseiled down the cliffs of Vesuvius to attack the Roman camp to the splitting up of the slave army when Crixus and Spartacus had a falling out. The gladiator scenes are just as good as the original too.All in all, a great movie that even die-hard fans of the Kirk Douglas version should enjoy.

dstager-1 The original Spartacus is a superior movie as movies go. However, this version has much to offer and won't disappoint. The depiction of the Gladiator fights has several authentic touches such as the branding on the neck of the losing fighter. The brand was to insure the gladiator wasn't faking death! They still got the thumbs-down crowd signal wrong. In the movies, the thumbs-down means the crowd wants the loser to die. In reality the thumbs-down meant to let the loser live and to signal the victor to put down their sword. The death signal was a thumb stabbing motion toward the heart. I suppose they can be forgiven because few people watching the movie would know that and it would probably confuse most people to change it. They likewise included the signal of the losing fighter to plead for mercy, but got that wrong slightly too because the signal is one finger, not two. Still, they obviously tried to get things more accurate. The gladiator characters were quite accurate as were their weaponry and armor. Very good job there. They obviously paid attention to the discoveries made since "Gladiator" came out in 2000.But the gladitorial combat scenes are a very small part of this movie. This is primarily a war movie and the war is a fight for freedom by slaves against the Roman empire. The producers retained much of the social commentary from Howard Fast's book. It fact they hit you over the head with it in case you didn't read the book. Most important in this the Draba character, the black gladiator who fights Spartacus. His role, though small, is key to the story. Also pay attention to Agrippa, the Roman Senator who is constantly making Crassius' life miserable. He's not what he seems, so pay attention.Watching the mini-series on USA Network over two separate nights days apart is unbearable. But when commercials are edited out and you can watch the whole thing without so many interruptions, the narrative is quite fluid. This would make a nice DVD because the photography is good, the costumes detailed, the acting/casting good, and the story excellent.It is just not the same movie as the 1960 version. Don't expect a simple remake. The ending is different. Spartacus' fate is different. It's more like Howard Fast wrote it originally than what Hollywood made of it in 1960.The 1960 version is superb, but it's not the same as this movie. It's a similar but different story. I highly recommend this version along with the original.