UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

ma-cortes This is a new version about the true story of gladiator Spartacus (Goran Visnjic), formerly adapted by Kubrick in a famed masterpiece. At the beginning , the Thracian slave laboring in harsh rock, when he's purchased by obese Battiatus(Ian McNeice in the role of Peter Ustinov). Brought back to Capua in a gladiator's school, he knows corpulent gladiator named Draba(Henry Simmons in the role of Woody Strode) and Jewish slave named David(James Frain). He escapes and stirs up all gladiators and slaves in a revolt(73 B.C.) against the power of Rome . Meanwhile he falls in love with Varinia(Rhona Mitra, Jean Simmons's role). After various generals (Ben Cross) are vanquished , the rebellion is put down by Crassus(Angus McFadyen in the role of Laurence Olivier)who confronts with wily old senator Agrippa(Alan Bates, in a similar role to Charles Laughton as Gracchus)and Pompeius. Ultimately the rebels are defeated and crucified along Via Appia, in a sea of crosses silhouetted against a sunset. Spartacus actually died in battle and his body was not found.Spartacus history is imaginatively brought to life on impressive images with great production values and outstanding scenarios. Sword cross, drama, gladiators fights abound in this spellbinding adaptation on audacious Spartacus existence , one of the most rebels in the history. Magnificent climatic battle scenes , features by hundred real extras, adding computer generator soldiers. Although redundant to original movie , is a fitting description of Spartacus character, however is sometimes a shot for shot recreation but it doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence. It's all immensely epic, though predictable, as we have seen the former classic movie , but also its predictability is redeemed in part by the charismatic performances of excellent starring with flawless portrayals and all around with the best talent available. The film is dedicated to Howard Fast, novel's author, and Alan Bates, deceased during shooting.The film is well directed by Robert Dornhelm, a miniseries expert, about historic events and characters, such as Archduke Rudolf and Mary Vetsera, Anne Frank, War and Peace, Ten commandments and even Rudy Giuliani. The Spartacus life was previously adapted by Riccard Freda(1952) with Massimo Girotti and Ludmilla Tcherina, the prestigious version by Kubrick and following with 'The son of Spartacus'(1962) by Sergio Corbucci and with Steve Reeves. The movie will like to people enamored for historic deeds and epic feats.

Andariel Halo With a mythic story like Spartacus, you can't expect too much accuracy and realism, especially with differing stories on the subject. Onen theory is that Spartacus was a Roman, who fought in the legions, but was arrested for treason after refusing to obey commands and defying his commander, and who abandoned his name and took the name Spartacus when he was enslaved. The whole "Thracian" thing developed because at the time there were two types of gladiatorial fighting styles---Gallic and Thracian, and he was Thracian.Another story goes that he really was a Thracian, who fought in the Roman legions (probably auxiliary) or earned his citizenship and fought in the legions, then the same thing happened and he became a slave and w/e. I don't care which to believe.In this TV version I was very impressed with the cinematography and costumes and such, but it suffers a lot from cliché's. For one, all the Romans are depicted as villainous, greedy scum who don't care about anything--not even other Romans, by the looks of it; all the slaves are depicted as noble upright men forced into their current position but are all such noble godly men and such.Another thing which really annoys me is that this Spartacus is a full-blown atheist, which I think should have gotten his stupid little head crushed in by the other slaves--or killed by the black slave when he was ordered to fight him for Marcus Licinius Crassus's viewing pleasure. Listening to his dumb atheistic sayings like "i don't believe in anything unless i can see and touch it" is really lame and cliché', and it doesn't do much for his intelligence, either. Even a true atheist wouldn't base his atheism on something that childish and ignorant.Then the Roman armor really looks... they've got no armor--no scale plates like some depictions, no hamata lorica chain mail like in historical depictions, but BROWN LEATHER! Even their helmets are brown leather. Really ridiculous. The battle scenes are also very "Gladiator"-esque, with the soldiers pretty much wandering off to pick their own individual fights, but for their sake, they weren't even in formation in that scene, so that's an excuse.Then there's the slave uprising at the gladiator school, in which for some effed up reason, the legionaries outside go into testudo formation (used for deflecting ARROWS, JAVELINS, SLINGS) and get butchered in seconds by what are essentially gladiators armed with knives, daggers, and some spears.The performances are quite average on everyone's part, except Ian McNiece who is spectacular, and Angus Macfeyden is stupendous. His acting as Marcus Licinius Crassus is awesome. And I especially love that crazed look of disillusionment he does on the wall in Southern Italy when he discovers Spartacus has sneaked over the walls while distracting the Romans by sending cows with torches strapped to them to make them look like an army in the night. The guy who plays Spartacus is really abysmal.All in all, probably fun to watch, but if you're really into history like me, you'll be shouting at the TV screen like a lunatic, saying "nuh uh!" and "omg" and "impossible!" and such! One of my biggest complaints was the Senators' irrational and illogical fear that Crassus would overthrow the Republic. If anything, Pompeius should be their biggest concern for that sort of thing, yet they consider him some sort of hero of the Republic (not true) rather than the Picentine upstart he is. And there's absolutely no mention of Lucius Cornelius Sulla at all, who was only just dictator of Rome just a few years before the events and had a tremendous impact on Roman politics at the time. Sort of curious that Ian McNiece is in it, and the year after he would appear in HBO's "Rome" as the newsreader. He should've gotten a bigger role in "Rome" though.

LBytes There's some confusion about this Spartacus miniseries and the 1960 epic movie Spartacus. The stories are very similar because they both use the Howard Fast novel as a basis. The Kirk Douglas movie had another mission though as it was one of a group of movies made to regain the public's interest in the cinema with lavish spectacle. The scale of its production is much higher than the miniseries. What the miniseries has going for it is more historical accuracy; the gladiator/rebel army marched up Italy, got to the Alps and changed its mind (very puzzling), marched down to Italy's toe hoping to escape by boat but was foiled and was trapped for a time. They broke out only to quarrel amongst themselves and break up into at least two groups. This proved their undoing as the Romans first massacred the smaller group of Gauls and then defeated Spartacus in turn. Spartacus' body was never identified, but many were crucified along the road all the way to Rome. Spartacus and his army made the Romans pay in much blood and defeat leading up to his and their ultimate defeat, though, requiring 15 or 16 legions to chase them down. Spartacus is a favorite hero of the Communists, BTW, being the working stiff rising up against the ruling class, etc...The 1960 epic is short on accuracy, instead showing the rebel army defeating the garrison of Rome and another legion or 3 along the way to Brundusium, only to turn back and get overwhelmed by multiple Roman armies. It was a closer match to the actual scale of events, as the rebels numbered around 90-100,000. But they both have the same love story tacked on along with treachery in the Roman Senate by ahistorical Roman Senators, and a Crassus obsessed with possessing the strength of Spartacus by possesing his woman.The 1960 remains my favorite version simply because its a well-done big movie (I wouldn't want to be the one to reprise Olivier's Crassus!)although it was good to see a more accurate portrayal of the course of events shown in the miniseries. The acting was pretty good, with Spartacus' Visnjic a good choice for the title role.

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.