Spartacus (1960) (Restored Edition)

[Brian81]

Wow, looked at the comparisons on the Spanish website. Looks fantastic!!!

[murphywmm]

Those screencaps show quite a difference between the new release and the old. The difference between the two is actually quite astonishing. It really makes the old release look like a DNR wax museum.

[42041]

Nothing astonishing for anyone familiar with how these large-format films should look on the big screen - the old release has always looked atrocious. This is how it and any reasonably preserved film shot in 70mm or technirama should look - clean, detailed, and sharp.

[MiraF]

Originally Posted by sartana

I always wonder how different Spartacus would have turned out if Kubrick had full control.

Can't remember a single Kubrick movie I liked although, like pretty much everyone else, there are a few scenes here and there I enjoyed. So, as far as I'm concerned, Thank God He Didn't Have Full Control!

It would be fair to say that Spartacus was and is a masterpiece because Kubrick was kept on a leash. We've all seen what happened once the leash fell.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by MiraF

Can't remember a single Kubrick movie I liked although, like pretty much everyone else, there are a few scenes here and there I enjoyed. So, as far as I'm concerned, Thank God He Didn't Have Full Control!

It would be fair to say that Spartacus was and is a masterpiece because Kubrick was kept on a leash. We've all seen what happened once the leash fell.

your entitled to your opinion, but you kind of set yourself up here w/ that last remark, so here goes...

yeah, we all saw what happened - films ranked #3, #50, #52, #92, #105, #206, #458, #527, #580, and #687 on the TSPDT top 1000 films of all time that aggregates rankings of all major "best of" lists. those 10 films were his last 10 films, btw..., so please - rein that genius in!

[ArnoldLayne56]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

your entitled to your opinion, but you kind of set yourself up here w/ that last remark, so here goes...

yeah, we all saw what happened - films ranked #3, #50, #52, #92, #105, #206, #458, #527, #580, and #687 on the TSPDT top 1000 films of all time that aggregates rankings of all major "best of" lists. those 10 films were his last 10 films, btw..., so please - rein that genius in!

You beat me to it.
Well, as they say "There's no accounting for taste".

I guess I could go on the Vertigo forum and profess a complete dislike for Hitchcock....

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by ArnoldLayne56

I guess I could go on the Vertigo forum and profess a complete dislike for Hitchcock....

you could, but I'd meet you there and try to think of something clever to say as a rebuttal as Vertigo is my favorite movie of all time!

[MiraF]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

your entitled to your opinion, but you kind of set yourself up here w/ that last remark, so here goes...

yeah, we all saw what happened - films ranked #3, #50, #52, #92, #105, #206, #458, #527, #580, and #687 on the TSPDT top 1000 films of all time that aggregates rankings of all major "best of" lists. those 10 films were his last 10 films, btw..., so please - rein that genius in!

If they are on some of "The best movies of all time" list then they must be really really great, no doubt. After all some people consider "Schindler's List" to be equal to "The Dark Knight", and "Godfather" to "Star Wars" or "Lord of the Rings", on those same lists, so why not.

Maybe those lists are important to you, so be it. I've been watching movies since I was 5 (a long time ago) and seen so many I've lost count. I wouldn't add any of Kubrick's "originals" into my own collection of movies even if someone gave them to me and I believe I've seen them all. For me they are just curiosities, oddities to be forgotten, and good exemples of major lacks as far as storytelling goes. Then, as they say, someone's garbage might be someone's else treasure.

[MiraF]

Originally Posted by ArnoldLayne56

You beat me to it.
Well, as they say "There's no accounting for taste".

I guess I could go on the Vertigo forum and profess a complete dislike for Hitchcock....

You could but at least Vertigo had the signature of Hitchcock, Spartacus didn't have Kubrick's. This is not a forum about Kubrick but about Spartacus and what's remarquable about Spartacus was that none of the movie had anything to do with any of Kubrick's "originals", even if Kubrick's name was in the generic. And, I'll say it again, it's also the reason why Spartacus was a great movie and not something that looked like as a result of drug abuse, going into every directions and loosing itself in the process.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by MiraF

If they are on some of "The best movies of all time" list then they must be really really great, no doubt. After all some people consider "Schindler's List" to be equal to "The Dark Knight", and "Godfather" to "Star Wars" or "Lord of the Rings", on those same lists, so why not.

Maybe those lists are important to you, so be it. I've been watching movies since I was 5 (a long time ago) and seen so many I've lost count. I wouldn't add any of Kubrick's "originals" into my own collection of movies even if someone gave them to me and I believe I've seen them all. For me they are just curiosities, oddities to be forgotten, and good exemples of major lacks as far as storytelling goes. Then, as they say, someone's garbage might be someone's else treasure.

well, it is an objective list of aggregated subjective opinions... and this is world cinema, mind you. nothing against The Dark Knight or LOTR, but those films aren't even close to attaining the stature that Kubrick attained with his best work.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by MiraF

You could but at least Vertigo had the signature of Hitchcock, Spartacus didn't have Kubrick's. This is not a forum about Kubrick but about Spartacus and what's remarquable about Spartacus was that none of the movie had anything to do with any of Kubrick's "originals", even if Kubrick's name was in the generic. And, I'll say it again, it's also the reason why Spartacus was a great movie and not something that looked like as a result of drug abuse, going into every directions and loosing itself in the process.

And yet, all you have done is slag off Kubrick.

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by MiraF

You could but at least Vertigo had the signature of Hitchcock, Spartacus didn't have Kubrick's. This is not a forum about Kubrick but about Spartacus and what's remarquable about Spartacus was that none of the movie had anything to do with any of Kubrick's "originals", even if Kubrick's name was in the generic. And, I'll say it again, it's also the reason why Spartacus was a great movie and not something that looked like as a result of drug abuse, going into every directions and loosing itself in the process.

ha ha! I think I'm done here.

[MiraF]

Originally Posted by bwdowiak

well, it is an objective list of aggregated subjective opinions... and this is world cinema, mind you. nothing against The Dark Knight or LOTR, but those films aren't even close to attaining the stature that Kubrick attained with his best work.

Then we agree on the value of those lists.

Often movies are boosted because many consider a below-than-average movie should get 7, an average 8, and anything better 9 or 10, which puts every movies in the same ball park. I prefer to use the full range because for me average falls squarely in the middle between a masterpiece and garbage, between 10 and 0: 5. When I consider a movie I think of the best I've seen and ask myself if the movie is in the same ball park as, let's say, Schindler's List, Ben-Hur, Casablanca, Saving Private Ryan, Godfather, Unforgiven and so on? If not then the number fall. Is it close to being a masterpiece, but not quite, like say: Blade Runner, Silence of the Lambs, Braveheart, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Amadeus and so on? Then it's a 9. If not the number falls again, and so on.

What I'm saying is that any movie can, as a general rule, be enjoyed once but few deserve to be watched many times, and when you compare really great movies with the one you've just seen you'll suddenly see it for what it really is, usually something far away from the greatest. As for me anything I can't watch twice is *not* something I call a *good* movie.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by MiraF

We've all seen what happened once the leash fell.

Yeah, he made movies you didn't like.

Small price to pay for films like 2001 and Full Metal Jacket and Dr Strangelove.

[Dubstar]

So...this comes out next Tuesday and no one has received or posted an online review ?!? Guess Universal decided not to give out advance copies [shrugs]

[GrouchoFan]

I don't really care how Kubrick felt about the final product -- I think it's a GREAT movie! Saw the previous restoration a couple of times on the big screen. Looking forward to the new Blu-ray, and will keep my Criterion set for the supplements.

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

So...this comes out next Tuesday and no one has received or posted an online review ?!? Guess Universal decided not to give out advance copies [shrugs]

MichaelR, one of the reviewers on this site, has indicated previously that Universal does not provide screeners for review. I think it was The Man Who Wasn't There thread.

[Ray_Rogers]

Originally Posted by GrouchoFan

I don't really care how Kubrick felt about the final product -- I think it's a GREAT movie! Saw the previous restoration a couple of times on the big screen. Looking forward to the new Blu-ray, and will keep my Criterion set for the supplements.

Agreed about it's a great movie. It's one of my favorites.
Same but I should've kept my Criterion DVD set. Hopefully when Criterion releases their Blu-ray all special features will carry over from their release. As I mentioned I don't know how many times before, I've no problems with owning both the Universal Restored Blu-ray and an eventual Criterion one.
Of course I've held off on the OST CD releases. Happy I also skipped the 50th Anniversary Blu-ray and was going to get the HD DVD when I was still buying them around the extinction of said format. Glad I didn't too.
Would love to see SPARTACUS, especially this brand new restoration, on a large format screen. All I got to see one or a couple times during movie marathons when I attended them more frequently they used an older 35mm print which was a bit faded.

October 6th is fast approaching and really hoping to get it in-store.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by baheidstu

MichaelR, one of the reviewers on this site, has indicated previously that Universal does not provide screeners for review. I think it was The Man Who Wasn't There thread.

I wonder if they might rethink that now that their releases don't get reflexively savaged by reviewers

[bwdowiak]

Originally Posted by MiraF

Then we agree on the value of those lists.

No, we don't. You seem to have missed my point, but that's ok.