Dead Freedoms

Rating: 1/10 (19 May 2004)

Holy Schla-moly. I can automatically understand why Kubrick disowned this project. There is enough "stupid moralizing" to make you gag. I know the amount of flak I'm going to get from these reviews, but I don't care.
This is your only spoiler warning...
"Spartacus" probably lost its impact, even the gay subtext and blood, by the mid-80s. By then the material was already spreading through the system.
Kubrick (like Scott) never made a movie because he thought characters were interesting or because a plot sounded keen; those two elements are always the first thing that dates a film. Heck, James Stewart movies were better structured than this. That's first-level filmmaker work.
Kubrick prefers thinking in a visual world where he can explore and shift perspectives. Kubrick managed to do what he wanted in 'Strangelove' and '2001.' That's when he changed from studio slave to independent thinker. Interestingly enough, this and 'Troy' suffer from the exact same problems: 44 years and some people still don't learn.
The sets are as fake as 'Gladiator''s (and this really hurts after the dynamic 'Paths of Glory'), but the narrative is plain and dull. Scott kept a similar perspective, but was not concerned with the plot. He just wanted photography and, by golly, he got it. It didn't matter if he made it happier and more crowd-friendly/antagonizing.
Alex North is possibly the worst composer from this period. His sonic garbage here is nothing inventive. Hermann would do that with 'Psycho.' That got the ball rolling.
Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud