"Spartacus" is a movie which is a landmark in the film history, and inevitably this movie compared with the epic movie "Spartacus" of 1960 with Kirk Douglas as Spartacus."Spartacus" divided into two parts. The first part of it is better than second because has more action and show us the effort of the people for freedom. Counter to second part which is not as good as the first, I think that the second part is boring and awful. The only good part of this movie is Rhona Mitra who played as Varinia and is really beautiful. If you want to see a movie of "Spartacus", then watch the classic movie of 1960 "Spartacus" not any remake of this.

Goran Visnijic really isn't up to carrying a movie, and when you're playing a strong role like Spartacus, you need to do more than brood. The storyline was much better than the theatrical version starring Kirk Douglas. If it only had the budget of that version, it would have been much better. This story is a spectacle, and it needs to be told with a cast of thousands. Still, it had shockingly real moments and avoided the platitudes and preachiness of its 1960 counterpart. The film's strongest point was that it closely followed "The True Story of Spartacus", as shown on the History Channel. It was made for television and had to stay within a small budget, but they did convey the struggle accurately, but lacking the drama of a true historical epic. The story of Spartacus is one that needs to be told on a grand scale. This version had its moments, but cried out for stronger characters and a bigger budget. It was more brutally honest than the Kirk Douglas version, but it ultimately came off as a rough draft rather than the final product.

I have done quite a bit of research regarding Spartacus and the slave revolt he was part of in the century preceeding the birth of Jesus. This version of Spartacus - made in 2004 follows the academic history of Spartacus and the uprising to the letter. Some versions show Spartacus being crucified, which is not true. Spartacus died in his last battle with Marcus Crassus, which is how the 2004 version is shot. The 2004 version also shows the fact that Pompey, a popular Roman General called upon by the Roman Senate to help stop the slave revolt, took credit for defeating Spartacus when in fact it was Marcus Crassus who actually defeated Spartacus and his army. If there is one thing I would have liked added it would be some sort of trailer language that described the remaining years of Marcus Crassus as he was a main character in the movie but the movie sort of left him "hanging" in the end. In truth, Marcus Crassus never achieved the glory he desired for himself and eventually met a very horrible end when he battled the Persian Army years after the defeat of Spartacus. The Persian Army captured Marcus Crassus after defeating his army and to kill him, poured molten gold down his throat. He was then beheaded and his head sent to the King of Persia as a trophy. I think this was a fitting end for a man who was very vain, a glory seeker and who despised the idea of freedom for all men, except the rich Romans.

If you want to see the real movie, watch the Kirk Douglas movie. What's the purpose of this remake? part 1 is ok, part 2 is terrible. I gave it a 5 out of 10 only because there were some interesting scenes, but this 4 hours of mostly commercials will leave you in wonder as to how they somehow hoodwinked you into watching.Its a good movie to watch while balancing your checkbook, or getting done other projects. The actors seemed to be thinking the whole time "geez, I am in a made for tv mini-series."Rhona Mitra is nice to watch, other than that, don't waste your time.