Stanley Kubrick's early-career epic strikes satisfactorily with both spectacle and emotion, particularly with the latter

Rating: 7/10 (3 June 2009)

Like with many epics, the production for 1960's "Spartacus" was not an easy one. The film went through two directors, many troubling cast decisions, and other grueling filming procedures, however, the final result is by all means pleasing. "Spartacus" was the first great film for acclaimed filmmaker Stanley Kubrick who would later go on to direct films such as "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) and "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) and while his slavery gem does not par with epics such as "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) and "The Ten Commandments" (1956) it is a very interesting motion picture that while dated, seems somehow more effective and mature than its modern day mimickers.
Kirk Douglas stars in the title role as Spartacus: a Thracian slave who revolted against the tyrannical Roman Empire during its greatest years. Not much is known about the real Spartacus, but Douglas's portrayal, which very well might have been an influence for Mel Gibson's William Wallace in "Braveheart" (1994) and Russell Crowe's Maximus in "Gladiator" (2000), as a freedom-hungry but bloodthirsty nationalist is certainly the model for what many like to base their ideal heroes from. Opposing Spartacus is the vicious Marcus Crassus (Laurence Olivier) of Rome, whose goal ultimately becomes not to destroy Spartacus, but to destroy the name and goals of Spartacus.
At a length of more than three hours, "Spartacus" is a tad too long, but there's not a single uninteresting moment throughout its running time. Perhaps it has too much for its own good and MAYBE some of the cuts from the past releases were necessary or did it some good, but ultimately there is no better way to see a film than the way its creator intended for it. It is held up by a very strong cast, especially by a performance by Peter Ustinov as a conniving, opportunistic slave trader. A common error of many historical epics are strong supporting characters and weak leading characters. But here, "Spartacus" does not fault. I was very intrigued by the performance by Kirk Douglas and saw him as a fleshed-out human being and since so little is known about the man he's portraying, there's no room for complaints on accuracy. Laurence Olivier, too, was very compelling as the tyrannical Crassus who taunts and torments with more than just his armies and his declarations for destroying the slave revolts.
Stanley Kubrick was only thirty-one years old when he directed "Spartacus" after the first director was removed from the production and already one can see the early stages of his visions for spectacle and emotion. But in this case, the most interesting thing about Kubrick's film is the latter. While the glorious battle scenes in the film are by all means riveting, I was more compelled and interested in the genuine human stories that went on between the slaughters, especially with the romance between Douglas and Simmons, which never overstays its welcome and has an effective, pleasant atmosphere surrounding it. Alex North's Academy Award-nominated music score really finds the right note and volume for these surprisingly tender and poignant moments. And note how Kubrick wisely did not cast young actors for these performances and how he chose primarily middle-aged people for his principal cast members. Ultimately, this is more effective than going with the stereotypical approach that only the younger generation can wage a battle and the older ones mostly sit around and lecture. That is where it becomes more mature than its contemporary mimickers, as I noted earlier, and it's more convincing.
Unfortunately, it was not until recently that audiences saw "Spartacus" the way Stanley Kubrick intended it to be. Twenty-some minutes were cut before the film even premiered, some more was cut later on, and there are still some small pieces that are lost to us, but thanks to Robert Harris and James Katz, who saved other masterpieces such as "Vertigo" (1958) and "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) from the ravages of age, the film has been magnificently and commendably restored and the missing scenes have been put back where they should have always been. There are still some glitches and color problems left in the film, but of course, it was stored under the most deplorable of conditions since its original 1960 release.
Is "Spartacus" what I would call a great epic film? No. But is it an entertaining and good one, nonetheless? Absolutely. My only real complaints for the film is the long running time, which I feel is a little too stretched, some underdeveloped supporting characters which were meant to strike with, I think, more emotional impact. And save for the romantic cues, I didn't find Alex North's score particularly passionate and majestic. But these small complaints aside, "Spartacus" is an altogether strong epic and a very satisfactory motion picture.