Spartacus (2004)

Very disappointing...

Don't Believe the Hype

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

The novel by Howard Fast deservedly works as a source for the story of Spartacus on the screen. However, it got considerably condensed in the 1960 classic Kubrick/Douglas production due to some specific limitations/requirements in the Hollywood of that time. This resulted in a fabulous motion picture, a cult Roman epic, the last great production of the period; yet, that is the movie which, for more than half a century, has stood on its own as a more independent production rather than a good novel adaptation. Therefore, the idea to make something more faithful to Fast's bestseller occurred reasonable after all these years when Ridley Scott's GLADIATOR marked a new rise of ancient epics. Robert Dornhelm's SPARTACUS is no remake, which makes all comparisons fruitless but its great challenge of adapting the novel to the modern expectations leaves many factors open for analysis. Does it succeed in that respect? Does it make us keen on the novel? Dornhelm's interpretation of the story, being merely a TV production, appears to surprise both the novel buffs and the epic freaks. SPARTACUS succeeds at two major levels.First, this production maintains the core idea of what the entire story is about. Having read Fast's novel, most people agree that the content of the movie strongly resembles the ideals and events therein incorporated. Our attention is focused on various personalities, various lives that meet at one significant moment: their mutual fight for freedom. The slaves (no human rank within the Roman society) are at the core, the slaves are the 'heroes.' Therefore, at the very beginning when Varinia and Spartacus are equally introduced to us, we feel the very spirit that is so unique in the novel: human stories, simple stories with no king, no hero. That ideal is, of course, contrasted with the Roman world, the world of corruption, greed and self-admiration. The world of hierarchy vs the world of equality. Consider the Roman leaders talking of sunrises vs sunsets. While the world of slaves represents many fights but one goal, the world of Romans represents individual ends and means justified. The events that shook the politicians and ambitious masters reflected upon at the Villa Salaria in Fast's novel (an important location for the novel not mentioned here) truly contribute to the spirit of the entire theme. The faithfulness to the novel is expressed in the development of characters, including Spartacus and certain aspects in scenes like the 'soul' blowing between Varinia and Spartacus, the true reason for the revolt in Batiatus' school at Capua, the ill ambitions of 'noble' Marcus Crassus, finally, the rescue of Varinia and the baby. And that beautifully addresses the novel buffs.Second, unlike the novel built upon flashbacks (beginning with the actual crucifixions of slaves and young adventure seekers' journey for Capua), the linear content in Dornhelm's SPARTACUS better resembles the spirit and manner of epic productions. The events clearly develop to certain climaxes; the battles are realistic; the gladiatorial fights are enriched with concrete 'ornaments' which, not necessarily historical, rouse viewers' interests. Deeper analysts will be particularly keen on the depiction of Draba's death...far and close to the novel similarly to the 1960 version. The convincing adaptation addresses the merits of the movie like wardrobe, locations, graphic violence (respectfully handled), sets, and... performances.Goran Visnijic, to a great extent, emphasizes Spartacus' humanity. He is more the 'leader with the broken nose' described in the novel, he focuses on human nature of his character including his own weaknesses. He has little of a great superhero's features - Visnijic's Spartacus is sympathetic, he does not distort the image that was incorporated in the novel – a good husband, a good gladiator and a good 'father' for his peoples. Sir Alan Bates (who actually died during the production) is another key character here. His role of Agrippa refers to the role of Charles Laughton's Gracchus and, similarly to the novel character Gracchus. He represents the different face of Rome – although his ways up the ladder were also deceptive, he is the politician who can face and accept the truth no matter how bitter it is. That makes Agrippa a good Roman...that made Gracchus a good Roman. Finally, the character portrayal that needs more attention is...Rhona Mitra's Varinia – something revolutionary! There is nothing about her that makes you think of Jean Simmons but Ms Mitra is indeed closer to the Varinia described by Howard Fast – a simple girl from Gaul, an emotional girl, a 'savage' girl that makes the proud Roman leader beg her for her love and a Roman senator say "You shame us." All those facts, however, do not justify Robert Dornhelm's SPARTACUS for its flaws that appear to be striking at certain moments. First, it refers to the character of Draba and the viewers of Draba vs Spartacus fight – the key character and the key moment in the whole story. Draba teaches them how to live, he is a hero for the gladiators in the novel. They were selected to fight to the death by two Roman men who wanted to rouse themselves while seeing naked men fighting and dying in arena. One of them was Crassus...I think that this decadent debauchery should be emphasized more because it constitutes a certain basis for later struggles within Crassus' mind. I can understand that it was changed dramatically in 1960 due to the censors but in 2004 Mr Dornhelm could have considered that aspect of homosexuality. Another simplification is the weak development of David, the Jew.All in all, a decent novel adaptation, one of the TV productions that has really succeeded at multiple levels to address the very gist of the story. After the ancient Appian Way filled with crosses, the highly optimistic finale follows and beautifully resembles the never ending dream of humanity: dream to be as simple as a child, as free as a child. That's what never dies, that's what is written in stars...

hi i'm new here, so i hope that i post that at the right place. i saw that film last thursday in the TV (in austria). i just love it (above all, goran visnjich is really handsome as "spartacus", isn't he?) Today i bought the roman from howard fast: "spartacus" and i'm going to read it immediately. i don't know if the film with kirk douglas is really better than this, because i've read a lot in the internet about people saying the actors act worse and there are too many bloody scenes but i don't think so. i mean, if you saw "troja" with brad pit: THAT'S only about fighting.i'd really recommend it, i think i'll buy it on DVD...greets from austriaalicia

well, i saw this movie before the gladiator, and i never really thought it is such good until i saw the gladiator. I had seen lots of good reviews of the gladiator which is a good movie. but when i saw it, i felt that something was missing. And that was when i remembered the Spartacus. Spartacus - a great story of a slave. It is really inspiring and some moments makes you wanna jump out of chair and kick some ass ;D maybe, it is because this movie is intended to be a POP. In comparing with gladiator, i think it is a little better and leaves a little deeper mark in your soul than gladiator. Gladiator was tried to be made not hack too hard. While Spartacus - no

Spartacus was of course a historical figure on who there are not that many details. I saw a Discovery Chanel feature a while back which had just the dry historical facts. However, as a figure that has inspired many,(the guy was a favorite of Marx) particularly because its' a story of the oppressed rising against the rich. Therefore many people have taken the skeleton of what's known and added their own fictional meat.There is an old book by an Italian, Raffaelo Giovagnoli which I read as a kid and really loved. It has Spartacus falling in love with Sulla's wife Valeria, and he has a son and so on. Then there seems to be the Howard Fast book which I haven't read.Kubrick's is but another interpretation of that story, and a very Hollywood one at that, with the positives and negatives that entails. For some reason, many people on this board seem to associate the name Spartacus only with Kubrick and Douglas and assume this is a remake. It's not. It uses the base of what is known about Spartacus and adds fiction like the girl (by the way, I'm a big Rhona Mitra fan, she is sssmokin'), and the love story and so on. I don't know if that is taken from the H. Fast book or not but if this series is treated as another re-interpretation of the story rather than a remake of the old movie I think people would enjoy it a lot more.That said, I thought that this series is really well done, as are many mini-series of this kind such as the Dune ones or Merlin. The actors are very solid and many are British which is always a good thing in my book. For some reason there seems to be a rule that in every historical movie the cast has to be predominantly British and they all make sure they speak with the appropriate accent.Altogether a good 3.5/5 with gusts up to 4.5 depending on how much of a fan you are of a) historical movies; b)Goran; c)Rhona Mitra; d)the strong supporting cast: Macfayden, McNeice, etc.