Spartacus (2004) User Reviews

"What's important isn't our living or our dying but this new thing we've reached, however briefly. A world without slaves "

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 15 June 2008]

The TV miniseries opens in Gaul 72 B.C. where the Romans put an end to Varinia's world making her a slave… Meanwhile Spartacus (Goran Visnjic) is free from the hell of the gold mines of Egypt to be trained as gladiator in the establishment of Lentulus Batiatus (Ian McNeice).

Most of "Spartacus" contains many of the miniseries' best moments… The operation of the gladiatorial school and its training program is impressive and expressive; the apprentice gladiators are treated like special animals, tutored to perform in the arena as spectator-sport-killers, and occasionally rewarded with a woman in their cells…

In this degrading manner Spartacus meets Varinia (Rhona Mitra) and it is his love for her and his hatred for his captors that brings about his decision to escape and lead revolt…

Particularly effective is the scene in which Marcus Crassus (Angus Macfadyen) and his bored entourage visit the establishment and request for a private showing at its best of a pair of Thracians… Crassus wanted to see courage, passion, and above all finality…

Spartacus is matched with the African Draba in a fight to the death, but Draba (maybe rather than live as a beast) chooses to die as a man, attacking his spectators…

The scene summarizes the iniquity of the situation, the cruelty of bondage, and the subsequent uprising of gladiators in Capua becomes a triumph easy to understand…

Director Robert Donrhelm did a decent job, carrying the grandeur and the decay of ancient Rome

Good Miniseries

[LBytes · 7/10 · 7 November 2004]

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.

Different from original, surprisingly good

[johnrp-1 · 8/10 · 19 April 2004]

Goran Visnjic gave a very credible performance as Spartacus. Instead of the superhero-style portrayed by Kirk Douglas (which I happened to LOVE that movie), Goran added more depth to the character ... the strengths AND the weaknesses. I also liked how the show developed his skills as a gladiator by having him do some real fighting rather than how it was done in the original.

Crassus (played by Angus MacFadyen) was likewise very three-dimensional. It was a shame that the movie was only 2 hours long (4 hours if you count the commercials). Given more time, it would have been enjoyable to see more of Crassus's political maneuvering. If that character had been born in our century, he'd be king of our country by now.

And there were surprisingly strong performances by others in bit-parts, like George Calil as Pompey, Ben Cross as Glabrus, and Henry Simmons as Draba. You can see that they did their homework and put real work into their character developments.

All in all, I give it an '8'. I'd like to give it a higher score, but I thought that the fight scenes were less than spectacular. Add a few thousand more stand-ins and maybe it would have been more believable. But I just didn't get the sense of volume that should have been there.

Truer to the Howard Fast Novel - New take on great movie

[dstager-1 · 18 July 2004]

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.

Marvellous epic version about Spartacus existence with exciting drama and overwhelming battles

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 18 March 2008]

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.

See it for Alan Bates

[nankipoo · 6/10 · 21 April 2004]

Alan Bates' Agrippa is about the only reason I'd recommend this edition of "Spartacus". Olivier's (1960) Crassus towers over the one dished up here, and Kirk Douglas' title role certainly dwarfs the one offered by Vlicisc Globvc. The scenery is good, though. Bates can't help but shine. He was a truly great actor. Too often, I found myself checking the clock to see how much longer the movie would last, and I really hated that, since my expectations were high, and I'm partial to historical films. This re-make reminded me of the similar attempt to reconstruct Orson Welles' "Magnificent Ambersons" a few years ago. The sets were great, but the acting was incredibly limp (Bates not included).

Rather Creative Novel Adaptation Than Clichéd Remake

[marcin_kukuczka · 7/10 · 3 July 2011]

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...

Sparacus

[ballinlife1025 · 7/10 · 7 December 2006]

The movie Spartacus is a great movie about love and struggles. Why struggles you may ask? Because in this film, Sparticus is taken in as a slave along with hundreds of other men (called gladiators) and women who have to fight to the death, just for entertainment of the people in the city. And while in captivity he finds a women who he comes to love and eventually marries. Later in the movie, one day the enslaved men come together one day after getting tired of training day in and day out and fight against the guards, killing them all, and fighting any army that gets in their way, because they want to earn their freedom. The message gets all over the country, and all the enslaved people fight their owners to join Spartacus' army. But in the end the gladiators army begins to fall apart, and that is when their efforts to fight for freedom falls too. Although they finally get their freedom but only a few lived on not including Spartacus's, but his wife and child survived.

A worthy successor to the original

[stevec-35 · 9/10 · 26 September 2005]

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.

Way better than you would perhaps think.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 15 November 2007]

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.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

boring

[glentom1 · 5/10 · 8 May 2004]

If you want to see the real movie, watch the Kirk Douglas movie. What's the purpose of this remake? part 1 is ok, part 2 is terrible. I gave it a 5 out of 10 only because there were some interesting scenes, but this 4 hours of mostly commercials will leave you in wonder as to how they somehow hoodwinked you into watching.

Its a good movie to watch while balancing your checkbook, or getting done other projects. The actors seemed to be thinking the whole time "geez, I am in a made for tv mini-series."

Rhona Mitra is nice to watch, other than that, don't waste your time.

Both beautiful and accurate

[karone0355 · 10/10 · 20 April 2004]

This was a beautiful and touching version of the classic tale of a brave fight for freedom. The acting was wonderful; Goran Visnjic has a powerful presence and an emotional expression in his starring role. He had a depth to this character that I've never seen so well-portrayed in other versions. Angus MacFadyen's Marcus Crassus was not your typical "flat" villain. And Rhona Mitra was a wonderful Varinia; she and Goran made a perfect couple for the love story in this action picture.

The action was exciting, and I'm glad that Goran and the other actors playing gladiators did their own fight scenes.

Flipping through a book on Roman history as I watched, I was also surprised to find how historically accurate this version is in both the characters and the events that took place.

I loved it! Highly recommended, especially for fans of Roman history who want a more accurate representation of the real event.

Good Start Poor Ending

[nafps · 5/10 · 3 January 2023]

The differences from the classic film are obvious. More blood and gore and cheap thrills, poorer actors. Yet the first half of the story is very promising, the tension building at the start of the slave revolt.

Part two falls apart though. Predictable by the number battle scenes. And for yts drama, there is no one equivalent to the classic performances by Laurence Olivier, Peter Ustinov, and even Kirk Douglas's sometimes ham handed speeches.

Worst of all is changing the ending. Having Spartacus killed in battle and then showing Crassus, played by an over the top poor actor, moping and shown even having nightmares. It's laughable.

Utterly Amazing, Hauntingly Sad

[msmythoftroy · 10/10 · 19 April 2004]

I'll admit it right off. I've never seen the Kirk Douglas version of the film. From what I understand of it though, Douglas' portrayal was a much harder, gritty character than was Goran Visnjic's. Visnjic made you feel for he and all his men. The subtle undertone of sadness that permeated the character was breath-taking. While fighting, he moved with catlike grace and fiery hate towards those that enslaved him. The movie made me feel like I was there. The character jumped off of the screen with such truth that one could not help but cheer their victories and agonize and cry with them at their defeats. All in all, Spartacus was, in this humble writer's opinion, one of the most fascinating, beautifully choreographed and acted, and, most likely, underrated and unseen mini series of all time.

Not a review of the film - a review of a reviewer

[bijhan-reverend · 24 December 2008]

One of the previous reviewers, whose review garnered a "useful" label by 29 out of 29 people at the time of this writing, had the gall to correct the "thumbs up" vs "thumbs down" decision-making style of the gladiatorial arena.

This is the height of hubris. In reality, there is not a person alive today who truly knows what motion of the hand meant what in ancient Rome. The entirety of our knowledge of the "thumbs up" thing comes from a passage in a letter written in Latin where it is mentioned that at a recent gladiatorial game the writer had observed that the fate was decided in "the usual way" by means of "pressed thumb". Hollywood interpreted this as thumbs up vs thumbs down, but who the hell knows what it really means.

Where the previous author collected this notion of down meaning "spare him" and some kind of "stabbing motion" meaning "kill him" is completely mysterious and untrue. The arrogance with which he delivered the assuredly true claim forced me to correct him publicly, as his review of this film had been validated by 29 people, which by extension validated this fiction he perpetrates.

Pretty Bad...

[bandalho-1 · 1/10 · 13 January 2005]

It's as simple as this: Why try to do a remake of an incomparable masterpiece as Kubrick's Spartacus, even if you're gonna add new twists to the story? And if you do try, where are you gonna find actors like Olivier, Ustinov, Douglas and Laughton again? This new movie just doesn't work. That Goran guy who plays Spartacus is a horrid actor; the guy who played Crassus is not as bad as Goran, but it's plain sad to see him reprise the role made famous by King Olivier. Rhona Mitra is sexy and gorgeous, which is fine for me, but it's pathetic to imagine that sex goddess as a poor roman slave.

The only good (and sad) thing in this film is the presence of the wonderful Alan Bates. In his last movie role, Bates kept his inner glow, his charm and those beautiful blue eyes.

That's it. Go watch Kubrick's version and forget about this dumb TV version.

Excellent Movie that is also true to history

[LMK8763 · 10/10 · 4 November 2004]

I have done quite a bit of research regarding Spartacus and the slave revolt he was part of in the century preceeding the birth of Jesus. This version of Spartacus - made in 2004 follows the academic history of Spartacus and the uprising to the letter. Some versions show Spartacus being crucified, which is not true. Spartacus died in his last battle with Marcus Crassus, which is how the 2004 version is shot. The 2004 version also shows the fact that Pompey, a popular Roman General called upon by the Roman Senate to help stop the slave revolt, took credit for defeating Spartacus when in fact it was Marcus Crassus who actually defeated Spartacus and his army.

If there is one thing I would have liked added it would be some sort of trailer language that described the remaining years of Marcus Crassus as he was a main character in the movie but the movie sort of left him "hanging" in the end. In truth, Marcus Crassus never achieved the glory he desired for himself and eventually met a very horrible end when he battled the Persian Army years after the defeat of Spartacus. The Persian Army captured Marcus Crassus after defeating his army and to kill him, poured molten gold down his throat. He was then beheaded and his head sent to the King of Persia as a trophy. I think this was a fitting end for a man who was very vain, a glory seeker and who despised the idea of freedom for all men, except the rich Romans.

Not interesting...

[Thanos_Alfie · 4/10 · 19 August 2013]

"Spartacus" is a movie which is a landmark in the film history, and inevitably this movie compared with the epic movie "Spartacus" of 1960 with Kirk Douglas as Spartacus.

"Spartacus" divided into two parts. The first part of it is better than second because has more action and show us the effort of the people for freedom. Counter to second part which is not as good as the first, I think that the second part is boring and awful. The only good part of this movie is Rhona Mitra who played as Varinia and is really beautiful.

If you want to see a movie of "Spartacus", then watch the classic movie of 1960 "Spartacus" not any remake of this.

Character of David - Warning Spoiler

[eschwartzman · 3 May 2004]

Overall, I was not overly disappointed with this version of the Spartacus story - that of the Roman Gladiators Revolt. At points it actually was more factually correct than the 1960 Kirk Douglas version and played at a more rudimentary level than the glorified Hollywood original.

What I did find strange and not so surprising (here comes the spoiler part - although I don't think so) is the imagery created by the crucifixion and closing dialogue of the David character. Anyone that knows the original movie or the actual events that inspired them knows that Crassius crucified the captured slaves along the Apian Way. As far as I know there is no factual basis for the character of David a Jew that revolted along with Spartacus from the Gladiator school. I guess the David character was also supposed to replace the Tony Curtis character from the 1960 movie.

Here it is the SPOILER: To then have him, David, be the final crucifixion and for him to respond to Crassius that we will return by the millions (or something like that) and then to have Crassius stab him in exactly the same place that Jesus Christ was stabbed at his crucifixion was only done to add the idea (to the movie) that the Roman Empire will itself fall/convert to Christianity at a later point in history. Granted the point is also that slavery will not prevail. Note for those not aware Christ is supposed to have been descended from another David, King David of Israel. The scene also felt like it was trying to take advantage of those individuals and movie watchers recently enthralled by Gibson's The Passion of the Christ by evoking that image.

Overall the acting was not bad. The story captivating for its content.

Dr. Kovac is in a coma!

[gzerna · 2/10 · 15 April 2006]

If there is any reason to watch this remake, it is Alan Bates' brief appearance as Agrippa. This was his very last, and his easy brilliance is a treasure, as always. There is also some decent camera work and editing in this mini-series. Poor Goran V. is horribly miscast as Spartacus. If he had hoped to break his type-cast as a thoughtful, well-spoken intellectual type with this role, he should have put some organic, animalistic effort into it. Vin Diesel (whom I detest) would have been better casting for this part. And as much as I sometimes tire of Kirk Douglas's over-the-top acting, his raw power in the original Spartacus was a world-away more convincing.

Ingeneous

[willrams · 8/10 · 21 April 2004]

I saw this on USA Channel and thought it was a great production. This is a remake of a wonderful story with Kirk Douglas and Jean Simmons. Directed by Robert Dornhelm and writing credits to Howard Fast for the novel, and Robert Schenkkan for the teleplay, it is an exciting war of the slaves against the Romans. The war scenes, however, would have been more spectacular on the big screen; however, they were bloody. This is different from the original because the love story is expanded; Spartacus fathered two children by Varinia; one is killed by Crassus, but the other lives after the crucifixion. Spartacus is played by Goran Visnjic, Lentulas Agrippa is Alan Bates, Pompey is George Calil, and Varinia is Rhoma Mitra. The lecherous and miserable Crassus is played by Angus MacFadyen. All actors play three-dimensional roles and are very good. If you want to enjoy good acting, music, and beautiful scenery, go for it! 8/10

Looks great, but a bit too cliché'd and not very accurate

[phenomynouss · 3/10 · 14 May 2006]

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.

How could this happen?

[Crystalmick2121 · 20 April 2004]

This was beautifully acted and when it was over I wanted more! However when the ending credits started to roll I was disgusted to see that Goran Visnijic's name was spelled Goren. Okay if you misspell Visnijic that's one thing but how hard is Goran? That seems awfully disrespectful and unprofessional. Where are the editors? There was a reminiscence of Braveheart especially since "Robert the Bruce" was opposite Goran for the spotlight here. And who could've missed the famous battle cry of "FREEDOM" when it was shouted? I loved Braveheart, I loved Spartacus and, what can I say I love Goran Visnijic. I think it's important these days to try and adequately and accurately portrait history's important events using television and movies because our children almost depend on it as a source of information. Using special effects and quality actors is a good start, thumbs up, but please fix your misspelling.

Great Movie, Great Potential

[vardanp · 10/10 · 28 April 2004]

What can I say, I loved it. I saw the previous one with Kirk Douglas when I was like 7 or something like that so I don't really remember much. But this one is quite unique. The setting, costume, and overall outcome is extraordinary. The actors/actresses did a great overall job and it revealed tremendous leadership in a small man. Basically, it emphasizes the old ways and is ultimately a battle between the poor and the rich; Rome v. its slaves. Even though Spartacus doesn't make it, his legacy lives on. Anyone who loves movies about the ancient traditions, problems, romance, and especially WAR, you'll definitely enjoy this. Take my word for it, lots and lots of bloodshed.