The 300 Spartans (1962) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)'The 300 Spartans' holds a special significance for me. I first saw this film as a young boy (I'm now 46), and it sparked an interest in ancient history that remains with me to this day. It would be interesting if someone saw fit to remake the film, with modern visual effects enhancements-but I wonder if it would have the same impact as the original.
Much of the movie is very close to the actual events, which took place in 480 B.C. A huge Persian army, led by the Great King Xerxes, had crossed the Hellespont from Asia to conquer the impudent Hellenes. The disparate, quarreling city-states of Greece had banded together to repel the invader, but could not agree on just what strategy to take. It was decided that a force of Spartans and Allied Greeks would undertake a holding action at what was then a narrow pass between the mountains and the sea. It was known as 'Thermopylae', or 'Hot Gates'. The firmly religious Spartans were unable to send their full contingent of soldiers due to a holy festival (they were curiously tardy throughout their history in such situations). However, Spartan King Leonidas' 300-strong personal bodyguard was not subject to this restriction, so he marched with them to the pass. Along the way, he was joined by an estimated 7,000 or so Allied Greeks. This tiny force went to confront a Persian host estimated by modern historians at around 100,000.
The battle itself is the stuff of legend. Superior weaponry, armor, and tactics (the famed Greek Hoplite phalanx), combined with the narrow pass that favored defense, enabled the Greeks to repel several frontal Persian assaults with tremendous loss. It appeared that the Greeks would be able to hold Thermopylae for a considerable time-until a traitor showed the Persians a goat path through the adjoining mountains which they could use to turn the Greek position. Once this was accomplished, the Greeks were doomed. Leonidas sent most of the Allied contingent to safety, and made plans for his last stand. He along with his entire bodyguard and about 1,700 allied Greek troops were slaughtered to the last man. Even though the Battle of Thermopylae was a Greek defeat, it punctured the myth of Persian invincibility, and served as a powerful inspiration in the future defense of Greece. A simultaneous naval engagement at nearby Artemisium produced similar results: the Persian fleet suffered serious loss due to storm damage and effective Greek action.
Eventually, the Greek navy all but destroyed the Persian fleet near the island of Salamis (near Athens). In 479, an Allied Greek army annihilated the last remnants of the vast Persian land host at Plataea (the greater proportion having crossed back to Asia with Xerxes after the loss of their supporting navy at Salamis), forcing the enemy from Europe for good.
The film adheres pretty closely to this narrative-with some 'Hollywood'. The love story is pure fiction (surprised?); there is some evidence that a Greek contingent may have attacked the Persian camp (possibly an attempt at killing Xerxes, thus circumventing the whole Persian expedition). The Greek army was larger than portrayed in the film-but I'm sure this was due to budgetary constraints. Mardonius, Hydarnes, and the Immortals-10,000 strong-really did exist (Mardonius commanded the Persian forces at the battle of Plataea, and was killed there). Themistocles (played in the film by Ralph Richardson) was the driving force behind the creation of the Athenian navy-and commanded the Greek fleet in the crucial action at Salamis. Unfortunately, the major role he played in the victory over Persia is largely absent in this film.
The actual Sparta was a far cry from the liberal land portrayed in the film; weak or sickly Spartan children were thrown from a cliff at birth, or left to die from exposure. Sparta was a harsh oligarchy, a military society where males were trained to be soldiers from birth. The entire population of Messenia, a nearby city-state, was enslaved so the Spartans could devote their all to military training. Sparta greatly feared a revolt of these 'helots', and many historians quote this as a main reason the whole of the Spartan army was reluctant to leave the homeland when their assistance was requested.
In spite of these inaccuracies, this is indeed a great film to watch-and no one can dispute just what the stand of Leonidas and his 300 mean to democracy in the modern world. See it-you won't be disappointed.

Click Here to see more reviews about: The 300 Spartans (1962)

Studio: TcfheRelease Date: 07/31/2007

Get 37% OFF

Click here for more information about The 300 Spartans (1962)

Read More...

Spartacus (2004) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)The rationale for turning Stanley Kubrick's 1960 film "Spartacus" into a two-part television mini-series was that this time the production would be more faithful to Howard Fast's novel. Given that the Spartacus revolt is a part of Roman history it would make more sense to try and be more faithful to that actual history than a fictional novel, but that is going to have to wait for another day and it just might take a while for Hollywood to want to revisit this story. The chief attraction of Fast's novel, in contrast to the historical record, would seem to be the happy ending that is provided by virtue of Spartacus having a child who survives his death and is raised free.
What we believe we know about the real Spartacus is that he was born free in Thrace and may have served as an auxiliary in the Roman army in Macedonia. However, he deserted, lived as an outlaw, was captured, sold into slavery, and ended up being trained at the gladiatorial school of Batiatus in Capua. In 73 B.C.E. Spartacus escaped with 70-80 other gladiators and camped on Vesuvius, where they were joined by other slaves who ran away from their masters and began plundering and pillaging the region. Spartacus wanted to escape Italy by crossing the Alpus, but the slaves from Gaul and Germany wanted to stay in southern Italy and continuing the plundering and pillaging.That first year Spartacus and his men defeated a force of 3,000 raw recruits led by Cladius Glaber and then two forces of legionary cohorts. In 72 B.C.E. Spartacus had an army of approximately 70,000 slaves and the Roman Senate sent two consuls, Publicola and Lentulus, with two legions each against the rebels. Publicola defeated the Gauls and Germans, and Crixus was killed. At Picenum in central Italy, Spartacus then defeated first Lentulus and then Publicola, having 300 prisoners from the battles fight in pairs to the death. The slave army then moved north and defeated the proconsul of Cisalpine Gual at Mutina. With the Alps open as a way out of Italy, the Gauls and Germans refused to go, and Spartacus returned to southern Italy intended to try and cross to Sicily.
At the height of the revolt Spartacus had about 120,000 followers and the Senate sent Marcus Licinius Crassus with six new legions in addition to the four consular legions to defeat Spartacus in 71 B.C.E. Exactly how Spartacus died is not known, although it is believed he died in the battle near the headwaters of the Siler River. Six thousand of the slaves that were taken prisoner by Crassus were crucified along the Appian Way from Capua, where the gladiators had been trained, to Rome. Another five thousand slaves escaped and fled north, but they were captured by Pompey's army and the following year Pompey and Crassus were elected consuls.
Enough of the history lesson. The point is that the slave revolt was not as unified or as simplistic as it appears in either version of "Spartacus." Following the lead of Fast's novel, it is not the conflict between Spartacus (Goran Visnjic) and Crixus (Paul Kynman) that is at the center of the drama but the collision course between Spartacus and Crassus (Angus Macfadyen), who are such mirror opposites. You have the former slave who is uncomfortable with being declared the leader of the slave revolt and the rich Roman who is just begging to be put in command of troops. Then there is Varinia (Rhona Mitra), the wife of Spartacus, created by Fast from a reference in Plutarch to Spartacus having a wife who was a former slave.
I wondered about the casting of this version of "Spartacus" in terms of the ages of the actors playing the historic figures. Overall, they are slightly younger. The year the slave revolt was crushed Spartacus was 38 (Visnjic is 32), Marcus Licinius Crassus was 45 (Macfadyen is 41, but looks much younger), and Pompey the Great was 36 (George Calil is 31). Although Pompey actually enjoyed a triumph when he was 24, he was the exception and not the rule. Yet in this production it is like the junior executives are fighting over who gets to run the firm. No wonder a giant slave army is running around the Italian countryside for a couple of years and no wonder after watching this remake you will be more impressed with the performance of Kirk Douglas in the original.
Visnjic's Spartacus comes across as bored rather than brooding. Before a big battle his idea of strategy and tactics is to hope that maybe they will get a break and be able to win. I can appreciate the idea that it is better to die free than to live as a slave, but you should try to avoid rushing off to die. Macfadyen's Crassus is rather petulant. He wants to rise to power in Rome but is thwarted by the machination of Agrippa (Alan Bates), and he sees Spartacus as the key to every thing he wants. That explains why he postures like he really believes he can defeat the gladiator in one-on-one combat on the field of battles, and why he is fixated on Varinia. This guy cannot be in charge of himself, so how can he run the Roman Republic? Bates and Mitra turn in the two best performances in "Spartacus," which makes their supporting characters the two most interesting ones. Spartacus has been an idealized champion of the masses because he stood up to the Romans at a time when they were carving out their empire, but the idea that he was a sensitive guy who accepted gender equality is just a bit too much. Hopefully, the next time the story of Spartacus is filmed they will just go with getting the history right instead of being concerned with political correctness.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Spartacus (2004)

No Description Available.Genre: TelevisionRating: NRRelease Date: 26-OCT-2004Media Type: DVD

Get 53% OFF

Click here for more information about Spartacus (2004)

Read More...

Spartacus (1960) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)
If you're a fan of the movie "Spartacus", this is the version to get; the Universal DVD is as bare bones as they get with just the movie. The Criterion version looks great. The facelift the film received help return much of its luster. Kubrick later disowned his version of the epic Hollywood Sword & Sandal genre, but Kubrick brings much of his sensibility to bear; the fight sequences and epic vistas bring to mind Kubrick's work on Paths of Glory and 2001. True, this isn't a complete Kubrick picture; Kubrick had nothing to do with the screenplay and Douglas had all but cast the picture in collaboration with director Anthony Mann (dismissed after butting heads with Douglas one too many times).
Is it Kubrick's finest film? Well, frankly no it isn't. It's an interesting mishmash between Kubrick's detached, ironic style and Hollywood glitz. Spartacus is Kubrick for people who don't care for Kubrick's detached style. It doesn't measure up to Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, 2001 or A Clockwork Orange although it does compare favorable to the much darker Paths of Glory.
Kubrick stated that his intent at the time was to subvert the cliches of the genre. As a result, Kubrick manages to reinvent a genre that was in danger of becoming a parody of itself. As a collaborative effort, Spartacus is a great piece of entertainment and far more sophisticated than almost everything else that came out of Hollywood at the time.
The transfer is beautiful with much of Kubrick's bold use of color restored. The strong acting of most of the cast has always been a virtue of Sparatcus. The soundtrack has been meticulously transferred to 5.1 and Alex North's beatiful score has never sounded so sweet, tragic and powerful before. The audio commentary is the same one that was on the laserdisc version. It provides additional understanding about the complexity of making an independently produced project like Spartacus. Kirk Douglas' bold decision to produce the film himself (with Universal-International distributing)was a leap of faith in both the material and the talented director.
The second disc is stuffed with supplements that are found nowhere else.There's two older interviews with Peter Ustinov, Jean Simmons plus one that Ustinov did in 1992 for the laserdisc edition. It's delightful and he shares a number of funny stories about the picture. There's also a text overview of Kubrick's career and his involvement with the picture. Included also are sketches Kubrick made for the motion picture (artistically they're nothing special but they do provide insight into Kubrick's role in the visualization of the film). Included are some vintage newsreels and a promotional film originally made but unfinished for Spartacus that gives us a glimpse behind the scenes. The promotional film is missing it's soundtrack (in fact, it might have been lost if not for the forsight of a private collector) and has much from North's score. We also get to glimpse at Saul Bass' wonderful title design sequence.
Criterion has been both praised and criticized for their DVDs and laserdiscs before. While they tend to be expensive, this is the complete package. Occasionally Criterion will release a package that isn't up to their usual standards. Spartacus isn't one of them. Robert Harris (Harris restored the film along with Vertigo)evidently was also involved in the transfer to DVD. If you want a spectacular transfer of the film, loads of extras about the making and background of the project from those involved, this is the set to pick up.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Spartacus (1960)

SPARTACUS - DVD Movie

Get 15% OFF

Click here for more information about Spartacus (1960)

Read More...

Silent Night (2002) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)I wasn't at the Battle of the Bulge, the last great battle of World War II whose little-known and unknown byways form the locale of this true-life story, but SILENT NIGHT is, in its way, as evocative and illuminating of this momentous event in history as its far-better-known counterpart, the 1949 front-line combat film, BATTLEGROUND.
Rather than concentrating on the fierce, frozen struggle that the Bulge certainly was -- leaving as it did, thousands of Americans and Germans dead in the dark, snowy Huertgen Forest during that brutal winter of 1944-'45 -- SILENT NIGHT deals with the intertwined universality of soldiers' longing for home, a war-weary German mother's longing for peace in her own home, and her little boy's desperate need for a sign that the world he'll inherit might be filled by something other than the hollow, ranted slogans of the Hitler Youth.
The performances, especially those of Linda Hamilton, as the frightened, yet determined, Frau Vincken, and the young men who play the GI's and Wehrmacht infantrymen, convincingly convey the snow-blanched weariness and wariness that surely contributed to the real participants' touch-and-go attempt to lay aside their arms for one last wartime Christmas, as a sign that their world may have tired of its madness.
Also utterly convincing, by the way, is the film's depiction of the snowbound German landscape -- photographed, as I understand it, in Quebec in the height of summer!

Click Here to see more reviews about: Silent Night (2002)

SILENT NIGHT - DVD Movie

Click here for more information about Silent Night (2002)

Read More...

Class of '61 (1993) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Emotional and realistic portralial of the American Civil War and how it effected both north, south and those caught in the middle. Unlike some war movies which ignore the human cost this movie shows in detail the cost to the main characters. Class of 61' is one of the best movies that I have seen. The movie starts at West Point and shows us the last class before the war starts. The friendships between those of southern back ground and the northerns and how their friendships are torn apart by the war.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Class of '61 (1993)

Click here for more information about Class of '61 (1993)

Read More...

The Vikings (1958) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)Historically, 'The Vikings' is largely nonsensical, from its title sequence misapprhension of the centuries-later Bayeux Tapestry to its hash of the succession to the throne of Northumberland. But this film is great good fun! - a superior swashbuckler with a sound plot, breathtaking art direction, costuming, sets, & cinemaphotography, & solid acting & direction.
Kirk Douglas gives a menacing yet humane portrayal of the Viking prince Einar whose falcon-disfigured milky eye inspires fear & loathing. Tony Curtis is, as far as looks go, perhaps a bit miscast but his energetic, seething performance amply redeems his presence. Ernest Borginine's Ragnar is fabulous - and one should keep in mind that Borgnine gave Ragnar life long before this sort of Borgnine role later turned him into a caricature of himself; Ragnar gives the film terrific heart & vitality. Janet Leigh is just...beautiful, despite the script's relegation of her female lead role into what is chiefly a plot device to motivate the action scenes. James Donald succeeds at fleshing out his character, but some of his lines are the only clichés in the script & yet he manages to rise above them with his careful elocution. And the ever-malevolent, narrow-eyed Frank Thring (Pontius Pilate in 'Ben-Hur', & a creep in 'Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome') does yeoman service as the conniving, spineless pretender to the throne. Alexander Knox's small role as the priest isn't much dramatically, but it's pivotal in the plot development, & his diction is at its customary excellence. Also memorable is the rune-reading Viking woman saga-teller whose moonlit face & sepulchral voice in the tidal crab-nibbling scene give the plot & its Norsemen their spiritual anchor.
The DVD's special features are interesting, informative, & enjoyable.
The supporting cast of Norwegian unknowns, all of them hulking & sweaty & masculine & lusty, lends a muscular depth to the action sequences & even, suprisingly, to the dramatic ones. Norwegian fjords & their sparkling waters & towering precipices provide a majestic setting for the action. And the dénouement at the English castle is one of the finest mediaeval assault & swordplay sequences on film, rarely rivalled, as for example, by those in the Charlton Heston film 'The Warlord'.
Most of all, who can forget the long ships? Painstakingly recreated from the best archaelogical evidence available at the time of filming, these rakish craft are in themselves stars of 'The Vikings' & they give ample evidence to why the Norsemen dominated the seas. The 'walking of the oars' sequence is not only unique, but it's one of the most enjoyable bits of all of cinema's swashbucklers.
'The Vikings' isn't history, but it sure is top-shelf entertainment chock full of style & panache. Kids & grown-ups will all enjoy its scenic majesty & full-blooded characerizations.

Click Here to see more reviews about: The Vikings (1958)

Hollywood legends Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Ernest Borgnine and Janet Leigh dazzle in this epic chronicle of brutal rivalry and bloodthirsty ambition. Roaring through the 9th century with powerful performances and "brilliant visual drama" (Cue), The Vikings is a riveting "spectacle of have-at-'em action" (Los Angeles Examiner)!Bitter hatred divides two brothers. Prince Einar (Douglas) is the son and heir of a savage Viking chieftain. Prince Eric (Curtis) is his unknowing half-brother, the bastard offspring of Einar's father and an English queen. When the Vikings kidnap a princess (Leigh), her beauty inflames the desires of both men, forcing a bloody duel thatdecides their fate and the future of the English throne.

Get 17% OFF

Click here for more information about The Vikings (1958)

Read More...

North and South: The Complete Collection (Books One, Two & Three) (1986) Review

Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)North and South is truly one of the great miniseries, and in fact in my opinion surpasses other great Civil War films such as "Gone With the Wind." Based on the John Jakes trilogy of novels, this miniseries spans the period from the 1840s and the Mexican War, through the aftermath of the American Civil War. It tells the story of two families, the Hazards of Pennsylvania, and the Mains of South Carolina. The Hazards are the owners of a great steel manufactory. The Mains are the powerful owners of a sprawling Southern rice plantation. George Hazard and Orry Main, the scions of their respective families, form a friendship while attending West Point that sees them through the Mexican War and which is tested as each takes his region's side in the Civil War.
The miniseries is reasonably faithful to the novels, and where it departs, the changes are generally benign. The story is also quite faithful to history, and both North and South are portrayed with respect, although the story harshly indicts the institution of slavery, and reminds Americans of the incredible fact that this evil was a basic fact of our country for a very long time.
Book one of North and South is superb. It spans the period from about 1840 through the outbreak of the Civil War. The portrayal of the Mexican War is quite good, and the story of George and Orry graduating West Point and fighting together in the Mexican War makes for a fine story. The film does very well at recreating the attitudes of Northerners and Southerners during this period--conflicting attitudes which ultimately could not be reconciled by the normal political institutions of the American republic and which instead culminated in the Civil War. The battle scenes are very good and surpass what we normally expect of a miniseries.
Book Two takes place immediately following the firing upon Ft. Sumpter. It is again very well done. This is one of the very best straight Civil War films. It is not without flaws. Just as in the novel, the Elkanah Bent sub-plot adds very little to this story. This is true despite the fact that the Bent sub-plot in the Book Two film bears essentially no resembence to the novel. But overall, this is a fine story. Lloyd Bridges in particular does a fine job in his portrayal of Jefferson Davis. Hal Holbrook is a wonderful Abraham Lincoln. Here again the battle scenes are very good. My only quibble is that the soldiers' uniforms are too natty and pristine. Real Civil War soldiers were never very well turned out. The combat and conditions were too tough for that, and the supply trains too inefficient.
Book Three takes place after the end of the Civil War, and is so bad as to be unwatchable. I'm not fooling. The way I look at Book Three is that the DVD makes a fine beer coaster while watching the excellent Books One and Two. Not only is Book Three unwatchable, but it totally departs from the story as set forth in the novel. (as far as I could tell-I mean it when I say that Three is unwatchable). Book Three of Jakes' novels was far and away the weakest of the three, but it was somewhat readable. Not in the miniseries, however.
North and South is imperfect, but it is still so good as to rate five stars. It really is a great story of the Civil War era. James Read and Patrick Swayze turn in great performances as George and Orry. Read was sufficiently good in this part that I am surprised that this role did not lead to greater things for him.
The flaws. First of all, as in all John Jakes stories, the characters, particularly the villains, are one-dimensional at best. Virgilia Hazard, Elkanah Bent, Ashton Main--these characters are complete villains and in real life no one in their right mind would want to live on the same continent with such scoundrels. I have always thought that this caricature-like characterization is the weakest aspect of John Jakes' writing, and these flaws, unfortunately, are faithfully recreated in this miniseries.
The good news is that as far as I can tell, this DVD collection is uncut or close to it. I've read the novels, seen the miniseries, and owned the VHS version of the miniseries, and these DVDs seem to be complete. Further, the color and sound on the DVDs is very good. Overall this is a tremenous value that many fans of North and South have waited for for a long time.

Click Here to see more reviews about: North and South: The Complete Collection (Books One, Two & Three) (1986)

NORTH AND SOUTH:COMPLETE COLLECTION - DVD Movie

Get 67% OFF

Click here for more information about North and South: The Complete Collection (Books One, Two & Three) (1986)

Read More...