Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

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/

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.

girlontop You will not find one Gladiator from the Bronx, like the Tony Curtis character in the Kirk Douglas version, saying "I luv ya Spa-da-gus." Instead this excellently acted version of Spartacus is compelling and realistic. It follows the history of the real Spartacus more closely than the Hollywood version. Goran Visnjic's portrayal of Spartacus is the best. He is so convincing as warrior, leader, and lover. The rest of the cast gives top notch performances as well. The love story is heart warming and tender with great chemistry between the lovers. PLUS, the lead role gladiators all did their own stunts in the gladiatorial arenas and on the battlefields -- loved the "twirling sword" action (like twirling a six gun.) There was a second airing a few days back and I watched it again. I hope they release the DVD soon.