"Classic" Kubrick-Kirk Douglas collaboration, like Spartacus - more precisely, a bad movie

Rating: 2/10 (29 December 2006)

For a reason which escapes me, Kubrick (an extraordinary director) agreed to direct 2 movies of Kirk Douglas, which I am sure actually did all the work and, well, the movies are bad. These movies were both produced by Kirk's production company, and he of course was the great star. Kubrick even disowned one of these movies as not his own - and yes, Kirk's influence is THAT bad.
Looking on the Spartacus page, I quote from the currently displayed comment: "As most are undoubtedly aware, this is the film that the director virtually expunged from his repertoire. But why did Stanley Kubrick really disown SPARTACUS(1960)? The answer can be summed up in two words: absolute control. [...] But you will notice that Bryna Productions not only financed SPARTACUS but also an earlier film directed by Kubrick, PATHS OF GLORY(1958). Bryna was Kirk Douglas' film company, and, as most filmgoers know, he was the star of both films. Besides having all the money to make the films, Douglas had artistic vision as well."
This is very nicely said so I guess I need to add no more.
Luckily, these two never made another movie together, and Kubrick made history by following up with Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. In the meantime, Kirk made no history but instead did 58 more movies, of... shall we say... very sad quality.
Overall, Spartacus is even more laughable than Paths of Glory because poor Kirk is a small guy and not even 2 of him would make up for the physique of a gladiator (yet he is Spartacus). But Paths of Glory is certainly more annoying as the sweet perfection, flawless intentions and pure soul of Kirk's character makes you want to puke - they are almost not human, let alone not possible for an army colonel whose job is - ultimately - to kill.