Own the rights?
17 out of 19 people found the following review useful: "What's important isn't our living or our dying but this new thing we've reached, however briefly. A world without slaves…", 15 June 2008 Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico
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…
27 out of 39 people found the following review useful: Truer to the Howard Fast Novel - New take on great movie, 18 July 2004 Author: David Stager from California, USA
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.
24 out of 37 people found the following review useful: Both beautiful and accurate, 20 April 2004 Author: Karone Talien from Wooster, Ohio, USA
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.
14 out of 20 people found the following review useful: Different from original, surprisingly good, 19 April 2004 Author: John from New Mexico, USA
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.
16 out of 24 people found the following review useful: Excellent Movie that is also true to history, 4 November 2004 Author: LMK8763 from Clarkston, Michigan
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.
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful: A worthy successor to the original, 26 September 2005 Author: stevec-35 from Australia
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.
6 out of 9 people found the following review useful: Good Miniseries, 7 November 2004 Author: LBytes from Atwater, CA
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.
10 out of 17 people found the following review useful: Ingeneous, 21 April 2004 Author: willrams (willrams@earthlink.net) from Santa Maria, CA
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
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful: Not "better" than the original, just different, 4 August 2005 Author: csullaf from United States
I think a simple comparison between the 1960 and 2004 productions is unfair to both. While the plots are basically the same, the methods, accuracy, and themes are totally different.The original 1960 film has always been one of my favorites, due to its often canned and corny acting, and Peter Ustinov's comedic Batiatus character. Sir Lawrence Olivier's Crassus, the primary antagonist, portrays a virtuous and patriotic man of his time. Kirk Douglas always entertained me, but his Marxist sympathies are close to the surface in his Lenin-like portrayal of Spartacus. And Tony Curtis? Hysterical....in my opinion always one of Hollywood's worst actors even though I like him. I think Kubrick tolerated him for his aesthetic appeal.My favorite part of the original is classic Kubrick film making, the panoramic segment when Spartacus watches the Legions under Crassus perform a perfectly choreographed battle formation far in the distance. I sometimes just watch just for that scene.Enough of the original. The remake is a very fine production that deserves to stand on its own. The 1960 film was a tough act to follow, and the "remake" doesn't do that. It is far more historically accurate than the original, even the city of Rome is shown as being somewhat smoky and grimy, rather than white and polished as it is so often portrayed by Hollywood. The sheer brutality (by 21st century standards) of everyday life is well depicted, for slave and freeman alike. Vjisnic (sp?) is a fine Spartacus. His Spartacus is a simple man but intelligent with straightforward beliefs ("I believe in what I can see"), who chooses fighting for freedom and dying as a free man, the simple freedom to choose one's fate, rather than living as a slave. It really was that simple for him and his followers. There is no Revolution of the Masses that Kirk Douglas seemed to depict.The one performance I disliked was Angus MacFaddyen's Crassus. MacFaddyen is a fine actor, but his Crassus comes of as a foppish psychopath. The facial expressions are overblown, his voice and dialog are almost effeminate, and the very un-Roman facial hair makes him look more like a Romulan from Star Trek than a Roman. I am not comparing him to Lawrence Olivier, but I may be biased by Colleen McCullough's characterization of Crassus in her "First Man of Rome" series of novels. In them, Crassus is physically massive, quiet, slow and deliberate of movement, almost "bovine" in his expressions. But his appearance an mannerisms conceal a very cold, calculating, and logical man. Ms. McCullough put a decade of intense research in developing her characters and story, so perhaps Crassus was preconceived in my mind. In comparison, MacFaddyen comes off as a spoiled brat. His performance was the one blemish I found in an otherwise entertaining and well made romp. Mark Addy probably would have been a better choice for the role.
8 out of 14 people found the following review useful: Utterly Amazing, Hauntingly Sad, 19 April 2004 Author: Kira (msmythoftroy@aol.com) from PA
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.
Add another review
