Reviews written by registered user
|2 reviews in total|
For me the pilot was something of a mix between the graphic violence of
300(it even includes somewhat similar battle sequences), the sex of
300, the idea of Gladiator and a bit of Rome. I almost stopped watching
it and I'm glad I didn't do it. People would see the first episode and
dismiss it as "gore and sex" time-wasting perversity. And they would be
mistaken. The plot, filled with at first glance one-dimensional
characters, is so varied, so deep, full of plot twists and
unpredictable outcomes that you may find yourself glued to the
screen.The sex is still there, the sexy images as well(muscular men and
beautiful women), but the characters have gained so much depth and
perspective, that you can't say someone is just white or black(with two
exceptions). There are so many shades of gray in between, that most of
the times even if you want to hate a character for plotting against the
protagonist, you find yourself siding with him on another level. The
protagonist is not a saint, the "bad guys" show they can love and
cherish, and you see the other side of mighty Rome, the one not shown
in "Rome". This show, even after the less than spectacular pilot, can
be and for the moment is great and it's not the gore or sex that make
In 300, Rome and even Gladiator, to which Spartacus: Blood and Sand is usually compared, the main characters are free men and women, people who act on their generally free will(yes, even in Gladiator). This show is different. Spartacus: Blood and Sand displays the Roman world through the eyes of the downtrodden, the helpless and the people without rights - the enslaved, THE underdogs, who eventually tried to defy the might of Rome, who lost and lost in an epic and tragic way and in their fall still achieved greatness and immortality. Among the nudity, spilling blood and duel sequences, Spartacus: Blood and Sand shows the viewer why freedom is such a cherished thing, what happens when we lose it and why people throughout time have risen to regain it and died pursuing it or defending it.
Some people mock the characters for being "one-dimensional" and demand more complexity. Others have voiced their contempt of the less than accurate representation of "the complex social system of Rome". Spartacus: Blood and Sand does not seek to represent the social system. For the people at the bottom of the ladder it was irrelevant whether Sulla was killing senators or Pompeus was gaining power. As for the one-dimensional characters, let me pound the obvious and say this - when you have to kill a friend at the command of your master, or be killed as well, there's no possibility for inner struggle or soul searching. You can't really disobey your master when humiliation, rape, torture and death lie just a whim away.
It's early to say definitely whether Spartacus: Blood and Sand will be a great TV show. It certainly is for now and gets better and better. Unless the creators manage to screw up gigantically, which they have avoided so far, this child of Starz can become epic.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
That's my first comment, so you're allowed to show some mercy. I first
saw the movie, then read the books. Also, I tend to watch a movie with
a "clean slate" and afterwards take away points for the stuff that I
didn't like. So, Twilight. (here there be spoilers) It's a movie based
on a 500+ page book. A book about a clumsy teenage girl that falls in
love with a 106-year-old, 17 years-of-age, vampire. A book told from
the girl's point of view. But the vampires of Twilight are different
than the ones of the Blade/Queen of the damned/Interview with vampire
franchise. They don't die from sunlight, don't have longer canine teeth
like a rottweiler, are impervious to silver, garlic, wooden stakes and
holy water. And they also can love. Take away the fancy vampire stuff
and you have a story about love. Passionate, chaste, overwhelming,
restrained, irreversible, binding, unconditional and irrevocable love.
Love so strong as to turn a small cold, rainy and foggy town in a
garden of Eden, where a lion and a lamb can love each other. Acting was
very good for my layman's eyes. Robert Pattinson was great as the dead
gorgeous Edward Cullen with his inner conflict between his thirst and
his love for the fragile Isabella "Bella" Swan, played by Kristen
Stewart. Maybe a bit more subtlety on his part would have made this
film even better. The rest of the cast are very well picked, with the
smallest personal reservation on the part of Keelan Lutz(You'd expect
Emmet Cullen to be much more muscular and bear-like); a bull's eye for
picking Ashley Greene as tiny elf-like Alice Cullen. Directing - I
liked the combining of characters, the interpretation of the book,
while still staying true to it. The music was great, the visual effects
not extreme. The makeup is mildly irritating initially, but afterwards
you forget about it, once you're immersed in the story.
As for those who complain about the lack of character, please remember: It's always difficult to adapt a book with a 1st person narration, rich in thoughts and feelings, to a movie seen from third person. Other than that, the movie can grab you, especially if you are allowed to actually see it without being disturbed by hormone-frenzied teenager girls gasping and sighing every time the young handsome males from the cast enter the screen.
And a few words for those other reviewers whining about something they did not understand. Baseball - vampires play it during thunderstorms, because it's the only time the noise of the game cannot reach the ears of the unsuspecting humans. James bites Bella's arm right where the veins are located(and sucking of the blood is easy)
Conclusion - Don't try to compare the book to the movie. Keep your prejudices at pole's length and turn deaf years to the throngs of girls and young women and you can feel the magic and the love of the Twilight.