Unfocused and simplistic. This is a Stanley Kubrick film?

Rating: 5/10 (1 March 2007)

SPARTACUS can be described in a few words:
Spartacus: slave, family man, husband & lover, freedom fighter = good.
Romans: hedonists, no families to be seen, hang around the sauna all day, scheming = bad.
That's it. The treatment is that simplistic. I expected more from Stanley Kubrick. Yes, the film was made in 1960 but even so I thought the film was too one note about everything, including Kirk Douglas' pseudo saintly character.
The pacing was rather slow which is typical for a Stanley Kubrick film. What was surprising was how unfocused the direction was. Kubrick films (2001, CLOCKWORK ORANGE, SHINING...) are probably the most focused films ever made and to watch SPARTACUS wobble here and there, with no discernible idea of what it wanted to be, was really odd. The film feels like it had just too many cooks working behind it.
The cinematography is also unusually unspectacular for an epic film. The sets are sorta grubby looking. Add all of this with the monotonous score, which was way too bombastic for the dour looking film and well, there wasn't much to enjoy for me. It's not a disaster by any means. It's a well made but it's average, for a so-called spectacular epic but also because of who directed it. Watching SPARTACUS was surprisingly underwhelming.