Given multiple reviews about 1960 ['movie'] ['Spartacus'], each offering insights, opinions, or criticisms on a single topic, merge them into a single, cohesive review. When reviews offer opposing viewpoints, ensure that both perspectives are represented in a balanced way. Structure the text to flow smoothly, weaving different points together to create a well-rounded summary. Ensure the text remains clear and easily understandable by removing any jokes, insider references, or quotes.Aim for a polished and engaging tone, creating a review that feels comprehensive and reflects the diversity of opinions. The text should be very long. Here the given reviews: ['Was it a great film? I saw this film on DVD after I saw it on screen some 20 years ago. Twenty years ago the film gripped me because of the performances and the wonderful script of Dalton Trumbo. Even today the film towers over "Gladiator." But as a Kubrick fan, I rate this film as one of his weakest films. This film like "Gandhi" wrenches your heart because of the story, not the filmmaking. The filmmaking minus the grand performances of Olivier, Laughton, and Ustinov is no more than good drama portrayed on the technicolor screen. But why on earth did Hollywood run the line.."Characters depicted in the film do not resemble people living or dead.." at the end of the movie? Is someone out there senile? The ghost of Julius Caesar should take someone to court.. ', 'The greatest battle .. is against time One year earlier, in 1959, William Wyler finished his own opus known to film buffs as Ben Hur. In 1960, Kubrick directed this film under the tight scrutiny of the "real" producer, Douglas himself. Both films seem alike in the IMDb. That is, the ratings are similar, the public acclaim (at the time) similar, and both won multiple awards. But the real battle, the real foe, is time itself. A half-century later, BEN HUR still shines, the dialog still rings, and Heston\'s prideful acting outlives the actor himself, as is true with all great actors. This film does not fare so well for any who would spend 3+ hours with it. Douglas could not resist casting himself in the lead even though he was 45 at the time. The average age of an actual Roman gladiator was 22. So Spartacus, to the jaundiced eye, seems more than the story of someone\'s father raising an army of slaves, than an actual gladiator. The fight scenes all seem staged, as, indeed, much of the "action" seemed in most films of the era -- compared to SPARTACUS BLOOD AND SAND in 2010, for example, the 1960 film seems almost in slow motion. The point? I could go on. Jean Simmonds seems lost in her role. The dialog is stilted. The music is insanely wrong, too much wind instrument noise, also common for the era. In fact, of the entire cast, the only one who seems comfortable in the role of a Roman is Peter Ustinov and that is because he carried himself in real life the same way, as if everyone he met was in some way beneath him. There are timeless films and timeless performances. This is not one of them. '] Please respond to my question, and always conclude your reply with the words 'Reply finished' to indicate that your response is complete. Ensure that the text is fully formed without any placeholders such as '[Conclusion]' or '[Placeholder]'. Make sure the reply is fully contained before these words and is not cut off prematurely. Thank you.