Benutzerrezensionen

Last time I watched the Ben-Hur with Charlton Heston the thought did not cross my mind that perhaps the world needed another version of the story directed by the guy who brought us Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and that weird movie where they make bullets bend.

Anyway, the Heston version is one of my favorite movies. I saw it when I was 8 and two times when I was about 20. I love it and quote it all the time.

But this is not a review of that version because (surprise!) it is not that version. This is a review of the 2016 version and I don't feel it is fair to give this movie a bad rating simply because it was an unnecessary remake. In case you are wondering, this is the sixth version of Ben-Hur.

The story follows Judah Ben-Hur, a Jewish prince in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, and his adopted Roman brother Massala. They love each other but they get in the middle of an attempted assassination on a Roman leader and wind up on opposing sides. They both feel they are in the right, get in a very sticky situation, and thus begins an 5 year journey of survival, revenge, forgiveness.

I liked the movie. The chariot race was thrilling. I was worried about it because the trailer showed a scene which an obvious CGI horse running through the stands. To my delight that was the only part that really used a CGI horse (that I could tell, anyway). The rest of the race was intense even though I already knew how it was going to end.

The movie focuses very heavily on the relationship between Massala and Judah as well as Massala and the rest of the Hur family. Massala's intentions and actions were understandable and he wasn't just some evil man who betrayed his family.

The main actors and actresses do a good (not great) job. I felt Morgan Freeman may have phoned it in a little, but he delivered one of my favorite lines of the movie. My favorite actors were the slave drivers on the galley along with the drummer. They have small roles but I loved them.

I didn't care for the Jesus scenes though. He is a hard character to portray, and I just didn't like it when he spoke. I'm probably picky, but I would have preferred to hear him speak in King James English or not at all (like in the Heston version). I just felt something was off with the scenes and they could have been more powerful.

Overall, I felt it was a pretty good movie that succeeds in many aspects chiefly with the themes of revenge/forgiveness and delivers one exciting race. It's not perfect but a good movie overall.

Admittedly, re-telling the story of Ben-Hur in modern cinema seems remarkably unnecessary since the original film was already so good in it's own merit. But to say that this is a bad movie would be a lie. There are plenty of powerful moments that portray betrayal and survival with its dialogue staying engaging and competent. Convincing acting from Jack Huston and Toby Kebbell helps establish a heartfelt brotherhood of joy and sadness that shines in key moments in all three acts. Even the supporting cast does a solid job establishing the tention of the conflict at hand. A serviceable soundtrack and action set pieces build to a good climax as well. I do agree with most that Timur Bekmambetov's frequent "free style" camera control is distracting with the consistent shaking and close-up shots rob what could have been sweeping epic shots to fuel the emotions of the film better. And the way some dialogue is delivered falls flat when the passage of time or awkward pacing steals their thunder. And of course, it's worth confirming that the CGI scenes are...pretty bad at times. In the end, why fix what isn't broken? It's tough to live up to an already fantastic film, and this 2016 adaptation of Ben-Hur will likely drown in history as another "Hollywood cash-grab". But if the story of Ben-Hur resonates within your soul, this adaptation is worth at least a single view.

Huston conveyed emotion, remorse, rage, resignation and relief with depth and the effortlessness of truth: each won by long years of pain or the grace of an instant. A sort of well, dare I say 'goodness' seems to emanate from the man. He is blithely naive, callow, filled with talent and care for his fellow man and beasts. A mantle of grace rests upon him....you can feel it.

I would give his performance 10 stars. In fact, I do.

The film, however...

I do not like the inclusion of contemporary music in historical settings. It grates at the suspension of disbelief required to be lost in the time and place being brought to life. It holds the entire narrative up against a shadow puppet screen and says 'remember, this isn't real.' That's not what I want. Contemporary music plays at the close of the film, I recall.

Also, the costuming.... they didn't get away with the use of polyester fabrics ~ particularly with metallic elements. They could be seen and were glaring anachronisms, particularly in the women's clothing and in the beginning scenes. Again, jarring to one wishing to believe he is indeed looking upon the time roughly corresponding with the beginning of our calendar system.

The costuming recovers, however. Huston's tunics and attire are flawless. But what about Freeman's Tuareg clothing? Was he a Moor? A Tuareg? An Amazight? They might have made it more clear which sort of African he represented.

The film is worth seeing. It is stirring. It touches the depths of suffering and sorrow and leaves an impression if not a few tears.

Hollywood remakes. For every Ocean's 11, there's 10 Willy Wonkas. So here we are saddled with another previously untouchable classic getting a slickly made, soulless studio remake. But is it fair to judge it just because it's a remake? Or does it succeed on its own merits?

I love the William Wyler '59 original classic, and watch it often. The quoteable lines are brilliant. "Your eyes are full of hate, 41. That's good. Hate keeps a man alive". Charlton Heston is great as Ben Hur. And that chariot race is one of the greatest action spectacles ever put on the silver screen.

I just can't envisage myself re- watching this. The effects are impressive, but any tosspot on a computer can conjure up digitally creative wowzers, so that is no selling point. And the action is predictably impressive, but it's so stagnant, slick and with no standout unforgettable moment. Jack Huston brings nothing new to the role of Ben- Hur, and Morgan Freeman clearly has a new flat screen TV to pay for, so he shows up to phone it in.

For the past 16 years we've seen sword & sandal epics go from fun genre revival (Gladiator) to moribund cliché (Hercules, 300 Rise of the Empire). In fact Rodrigo Santoro (Xerxes from 300) shows up as Jesus Christ this time. From Persian tyrant to Jewish prophet, now that's an improvement.

I left the cinema knowing that I'll forget about this in 3 weeks. Remakes can improve on the original (The Fly, The Thing, the '59 Ben-Hur is itself a remake of an early silent B&W version). But you risk falling into trap of being so slavishly loyal to the original that to redo the film becomes pointless (Pyscho).

I can't recommend paying full cinema price. Stay at home and watch the '59 original. On the small screen, Chuck Heston commands a stronger presence than anyone in this large screen bore.

Good day all Movie fanatics. Well let us talk about this movie. Relax I will keep it short. we are talking about the 2016 edition.

The movie had a mix in it Religion just the right amount not to offend any religion, the fight against army and navy and anyone who served in the Military knows who is he best. As I was Air Force, I go with the crowd. And of course the old, good guy wearing white and the bad guy wearing black. [ they did not have cowboy hats so they used colour coded amour] and that good can triumph against evil.

The DVD that I purchased overseas, had the very low volume on talking parts, and, as Microsoft 10 does not support my legacy equipment I am using Kodi to run my LG super multi drive so that fixed that. I would check with someone that purchased the movie in N.A. to see if they have the same problem.

The action was great, but if you are using 52 inch 4K make sure you have the correct distance as the race can be hard on the eyes if not.

The naval battle parts were great and gave you a perspective of an slave on the ship that many movies of that time has not given.

The race showed the horses dying but of course no animals were injured in the making of the movie but man, as you are caught up in the action you could believe it did happen. I loved the movie as they did not dwell on subject mater for too long in any one area but switched it up, but not to much like reading Game of Thrones.

Also the movie although taking some liberties, stuck to the story, but did not try and capture the filming of the 1950's or when ever the original came out. So if you hated the new Ghost busters because of it trying to be a remake of the original, no worries.

Morgan Freeman's part was done excellent as most of his movies are, but I wish there was a part that could have been added to give him a stronger role but there is nothing in the story that would allow it.

So if like moves in Roman times, i think you will like this very much. Insert the DVD and enjoy ! and for those of you that are saying DVD ? yes I am old school if it works don't get rid of it.

Good Viewing and thank you IMDb for the site, so we can s watch trailers and help us to decide to buy a movie or not.

Ben Hur has been a seminal film in the different eras in which it appeared. The 1925 silent film was produced by Irving Thalberg, Louie Mayer and Sam Goldwyn and starred Ramon Navarro and Francis X Bushman, two of the biggest stars of the time. It cost $3.9 million and was the most expensive film to that date. It was a big success at the box office and with critics.

The 1959 film was directed by William Wyler who worked on the 1925 film. As with the previous film, it was the most expensive to date ($15 million) and also had big name stars, most notably Charlton Heston. It became the second highest grossing film of all time, behind GWTW, and received high critical praise, winning an unprecedented 11 Oscars.

What about this latest version. It doesn't exactly have big name stars. Jack Huston plays Ben Hur and Toby Kebbell plays Messala. It's directed by Timur Bekmambetov who's best known for "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter". The box office was pretty poor, not earning back the $100 million production costs.

The film bears only slight resemblance to the book. When you consider how successful the book was, the reason to vary seems questionable.

All things considered this is a far inferior film to either the 1959 or the 1925 version. Some of the scenes are well done (sea battle, chariot race) but not to an outstanding level as the previous versions had done.

At times a movie may become a cultural milestone (so to speak) when it becomes ingrained in the memory of the popular culture, as was probably the case with the 1959 version and the chariot races.

This movie is in itself no masterpiece and certainly it isn't quite as remarkable as the 1959 version and as some have said it wasn't necessary to do a remake.

That being said, I do not think it's fair to punish this movie because it isn't as momentous as the 1959 version was. I think that when compared with all the other movies out there at the moment, it really isn't bad.

Going in (based on what I had read before) I expected to see the role of Jesus to have been expanded significantly but I found it mostly in line with the previous one.

Messala's motivations here gave the impression that he was caught between a rock and a hard place where he was fighting for a cause he believed would bring peace.

Also, the CGI chariot race was done well enough so that there was a sense of suspense and excitement about it.

Overall, I believe it was a movie worth watching, provided you just watch it on its own terms.

The story of Ben-Hur is back on the big screen this time directed by Timur Bekmambetov starring Jack Huston, Toby Kebbell and Morgan Freeman. The movie is set in Jerusalem and tells the story of a prince who goes by the name of Judah Ben-Hur. Judah's adopted brother Messala Severus is part of the Roman army that occupies the city. Both brothers have a different idea of what is needed to keep the peace in Jerusalem and this eventually causes the brothers to directly oppose one another. Ultimately this causes the enslavement of Judah and his family made possible by the betrayal of Messala himself. What follows is a story about Judah trying to regain his life and his road to revenge.

The movie starts out trying to establish the relationship that Judah Ben-Hur (Jack Huston) and Messala Severus (Toby Kebell) have. This is however not done in a very convincing manner due to the very stupid screen writing. It seems as if no thought has gone into the writing of the dialogue as almost every conversation feels fake. The story itself is presented in an incredibly dull fashion with story- arcs that have no real purpose paired with an ending that is completely ridiculous. What also does not help is that the acting is never really anything to write home about. The two main actors at least seem to have tried to bring some depth to their characters, but the same cannot be said about the many supporting actors. This is especially true for Morgan Freeman who seems to bring as much life to the screen as a decapitated sock puppet.

The direction of the film also leaves a lot to be desired. Almost every scene was shot by using hand-held camera and instead of enhancing a certain aspect of the story this achieves the opposite effect. During the many conversations the director puts a heavy emphasis on the characters through excessive use of close-up shots. Once again this achieves the opposite of what it sets out to do as no one is really interested in seeing characters that are as flimsy as possible.

Most of the times the only redeeming factor of these kind of movies is the action itself, but Bekmambetov's incompetent direction also finds a way to ruin this part of the movie. Quite a lot of action sequences only seem to exist to liven up certain parts of the movie, mostly to no avail as the movie still manages to come to a crawling pace halfway through its runtime. The action sequence themselves are filled to the brim with shaky cam and quick cuts. This in turn causes the action to be extremely hard to follow as it is never really clear what is going on. This was of course the intention of the director to be able to hide the poorly choreographed stunt work. In a lot of scenes characters pull of certain moves that they would not have been able to if they did not have control over the power of editing. For these reasons it is very hard to become invested into the action especially since we never really see the actors do certain stunts themselves.

In the end 'Ben-Hur' is a complete and utter trainwreck. Nobody really asked for another retelling of Ben-Hur's story and I am fairly certain that nobody really wanted to create it either as it seems that almost no love and devotion has gone into making this failure of a Hollywood blockbuster.

My Rating: 2/10

I wasn't really going to write a review but when I saw all the hate this movie was getting -I couldn't help myself and thought that this movie deserved some justice... I can understand that fans of the original movie aren't pleased- I guess they feel like seeing a book they really like getting butchered on screen- but in this case I don't think that happened. I came with low expectations and actually quite enjoyed it! The visuals were amazing-I'm an archaeology buff- roman to be specific and I think that for the first time in a long time I really felt immersed and got excited from seeing stuff I usually see in a museum come to life- The hippodrome was amazing!! And so were the costumes and the sets. In short the art director is a genius. And I finally feel that they got the look of Jerusalem almost right- at least the best version of Jerusalem on screen I've ever seen. (Kingdom of heaven's Jerusalem was awful). As for the characters they were likable- and I did find myself caring for them and being moved at the end. (All though I'm not sure I liked Jesus in it.. His portrayal made things slightly cheesy.. But not too bad.

In short... I think it's pretty good and stands on it's own and should be given a chance-especially since some part of me felt the honest need to defend it- and that doesn't happen a lot..And I do actually want to see this movie again :) Sorry that I didn't put further details- but you know- spoilers... Plus I'm sure that all the other reviewers already have..

I liked it. it wasnt great but it was for sure good. there was action throughout the movie and i didnt get bored even thought it's a looong movie. If you compare it to the original it's not something ground-breaking. But if you put the comparison aside, you will like it. its a good story and the acting for the most part is good. its an ok remake and definitely not as bad as make it seem to be

What a dreadful effort, it took a lot of creativity for this film to be this bad. The frustrating thing they didn't even have to take a chance, the book is over a 150 years old, there was a blockbuster stage show and 2 blockbuster films, all they had to do was minorly tweak the original book, or use one of the smash-hit films as a guide. I venture to say Ben Hur is one of our great stories, it has everything, love, spectacle, honour, adventure, redemption, meaning, a moral, and even a miracle' where could you go wrong. But wrong they went and I was never so angry and disappointed at a film and it was all down to ineptitude and pure genius at incompetence I mean how could anyone spend 100 million on Ben Hur and get it so wrong, the mind boggles. I give it 4 stars as the 2 great iconic scenes of which we all know, the Naval battle and the Chariot race were quite good. But the story around those events, the iconic Ben Hur story was complete and utter motiveless drivel.

Nice rendition about Ben Hur , the Jew noble being sent into slavery by a Roman friend , then he regains his freedom and comes back for revenge ; including intense drama, marvelously staged battle ships and overwhelming chariot races . In A.D. 26-Jerusalem, the wealthy merchant and son of a Jewish family, Judah Ben-Hur (Jack Huston , John Huston's son) , enjoys a comfortable life along with his adopted brother Messala (Tony Kebbell) . However, Messala flees to Rome and it will lead to an eventual separation .Now a Roman tribune, Messala goes back ; childhood friends and brothers, Judah Ben-Hur and Messala meet once again but things go wrong . Nowadays , as experienced adults , this time Messala is a Roman officer , a tough conqueror against the Jews and Judah as a rich noble , though conquered , Israelite . An unexpected reunion takes place after many years with his childhood best friend , but Ben Hur soon finds, however, that his friend has changed and has become an arrogant conqueror, full of the grandeur of Rome , and it leads to fateful consequences , as Judah refuses to divulge the names of Jews who oppose Roman rule, and Messala decides to make an example of him , banishing Judah to a life of slavery and imprisonment at a galley ship. When in Jerusalem happens a Roman parade , where is wounded the ruthless governor Pontius Pilate (Pilou Asbæk ) Judah to be sent off as a galley slave , his ownership confiscated and his mother (Ayelet Zurer) and sister Tirzah (Sofia Black-D'Elia) imprisoned at an impregnable jail . But the brave Ben Hur goes on his determination to stay alive when his galleon is attacked by a Greek ship , and then , to be shipwrecked , as he becomes a castaway and escapes . Later on , Judah goes backs his homeland . Unable to locate his mummy and sister, and believing them dead , he can think of nothing else than vendetta against Messala . Judah'll finally find peace in this revolutionary and enlightened new doctrine of kindness : Christianity .

Last movie of the acclaimed novel , being lavishly produced , stars Jack Huston and Tony Kebbell as Messala . This breathtaking film concerns about a merciless vengeance , not about forgiveness, only an unforeseen and gracious act of pardon will set free the once noble prince, who is now bent on revenge, as the incendiary teachings of the Nazarene Jesus rapidly gain ground. Although I think that the the famous novel written by Lewis Wallace is mainly about forgiveness . Furthermore , it deals with a extreme rivalry between the Roman Empire and Israel , in Rome the most important values were pride, rivalry, power, strength, the dictatorship of power , while in Israel rules the religion , rebelliousness , and protests against the Roman invader . Main cast is pretty good . Jack Huston is fine in the known role as wealthy Palestinan battling the Roman Empire who finally meets his rival in a justly famous chariot race and while rescuing his suffering family. And decent acting by Tony Kebbell as the nasty Messala who sends Judah to the galleys and throws his mother and sister into prison. Support cast is frankly well , such as : Ayelet Zuret , Sofia Black , Pilou Asbæk , James Cosmo , and mention special for Morgan Freeman who does some narrating in the beginning and end of the film. The chariot race required thousands of extras on sets constructed on lots of acres of lands . The MGM production costs were massive millions of dollars , as a lot of chariots were built , with half being used for practice . The race took various weeks to film ; both , director and producer insisted that the chariot circus be built for actual, and be made with as little computer graphics imagery as possible. They felt it was absolutely necessary, to make the chariot race look and feel realistic . The known chariot scene was shot at what is now the Cinecittà Studios, Cinecittà, Rome, Lazio, and Matera, Basilicata, Gravina di Puglia, Bari, Apulia, Italy and other scenes in Painted Canyons, Mecca Hills, California, USA . Attractive images , majestic set design , glamorous photography in brilliant color by Oliver Wood , and evocative as well as rousing musical score by Marco Beltrani , all of them combine to cast a spellbinding movie , though inferior than other versions . The motion picture was professionally made by Director Timur Bekmambetov , though with no originality , being a real flop at the box office .

Other retellings based on this vintage novel written by Lewis Wallace are the followings : Silent version by Fred Niblo with Ramon Novarro , Francis X Bushman , that still stands as the all-time silent classic ; it packs impressive scenes that still look nice , in spite of age and in 1931 , a shortened version was released .The classic version ¨Ben-Hur¨ won a record 11 Oscars , this recounting of the story is 87 minutes longer than the 2016 version , directed by William Wyler with Charlton Heston , Stephen Boyd , Haya Harareet , Jack Hawkins , Sam Jaffe , Finlay Currie , Martha Scott , Cathy O'Donnell , in which stuntman Cliff Lyons worked a Stuntman/chariot driver in both versions : 1925 and 1959 ; it ranked as the most expensive movie of its time and took years to end ; it is one of the greatest films in the genre "Epic". Ben-Hur still stands as the all-time silent classic . And cartoon version (2003) by Bill Kowalchuck with prologue by Charlton Heston and ¨Ben-Hur¨ TV series by Steven Shrill with Joseph Morgan , Stephen Campbell Moore , Kristen Krouk , Simon Andreu and Lucia Jimenez

By design, this is a very ambitious project! Not only because it's a 100 million blockbuster. Would the author of the Russian "Patrols" ever dream that he would be entrusted in Hollywood to shoot "Ben-Hur"?! A biblical novel was written by American General Hugh Wallace in 1880. The first feature film was made in 1925 - the most expensive film in the history of silent films. But the Oscar-winning film adaptation of 1959, which collected a total of 11 gold figurines, became truly grandiose. It was the heyday of the peplum genre.

Reviving with Ridley Scott's Gladiator, it's on the decline again. And now Timur Bekmambetov, having taken the post of director of the new "Ben-Hur", is forced to solve the following tasks: to rehabilitate himself for the failure of the film "Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", to adequately paint his first historical canvas and, most importantly, not to repeat the classic painting by William Wyaler. Therefore, our director constantly insisted that this was not a remake, but only another adaptation of the best-selling novel. But is it?

Despite significant discrepancies with the literary source, the film resembles just the same remake, but in its own way it beats certain scenes. "In your own way" - does not mean inventive! Bekmambetov's main problem is that, trying to modernize the biblical story, he, firstly, chooses a completely inappropriate shooting style, and secondly, does not pay due attention to the "historicity" of what is happening. What are we used to seeing in peplum? Panoramic wide shots, smooth narration and lengthy scenes.

This is how the viewer sees the scale, feels epic, lives with the characters for a whole life on the screen and studies each frame in detail, full of props and scenery. A shaking camera was also used here, which created the feeling of an ongoing earthquake. What is interesting in historical films? Study the environment. But it is difficult to do this when the picture is unstable most of the time and you get into your eyes - either part of the head instead of the face, then part of the body instead of the body! A steep installation so generally sometimes disorients in space. Static panoramic shots were still present (and even with extras), but they were outrageously few.

An attempt to bring the times of Jesus Christ closer to modern realities looked extremely inappropriate. After all, this was expressed not through the idea - Christian morality (relevant at all times!), but through the subject environment. In the stylish shirts Ben-gur, in which he walked around, it would not be a shame to appear in a nightclub of the 21st century, and the dreadlocks of his mentor Ilderim (played by Morgan Freeman) still raise questions - who curled them for him? This is a kind of glamorization of archaic things and even mores. It's hard to believe the Prince of Judea (Jack Huston) and the Roman tribune (Toby Kebbell) are authentic, more like modern-day majors meeting at a party in the ancient Roman spirit. The archaism of their types is still convincing, which cannot be said about their characters. Russian dubbing also throws up riddles - for some reason, everyone calls the main protagonist Judah? But he is Judas Ben-Hur. It was impossible to come to terms with this throughout the film.

As already mentioned, Bekmambetov changed his story in relation to the novel and, in particular, to the 1959 film. The main plot has remained the same. The picture tells us about the confrontation between the two named brothers, Judas and Messala, who later became sworn enemies. One for a free Judea, the other for the rule of Rome. Innocently convicted Ben-Hur gets into the galleys and only miraculously got out of there - he is looking for an opportunity to take revenge on Messala. The background to all this is the emerging Christianity in Judea and the preaching of Jesus Christ, with whom our hero repeatedly met in the most difficult moments of his life. Bekmambetov not only distorted the plot, he also simplified it, which made the dramaturgy very lame. This is a hastily retold Wallace novel with minor additions and directorial emphasis. If in the novel Judas (Judas) overcame a crisis of faith, here he faced only one of the postulates of Christian teaching - to forgive one's neighbor. In Bekmambetov's version, he discovers in himself only an inner attachment to his brother, while the true prince of Judea connects his fate with his native people.

In general, Ben-Hur came out as a rather weak and spineless peplum.

The atmosphere is dead, the characters are flat (perhaps one of the worst images of Jesus Christ in cinema!), the pseudo-documentary style of filming, jagged editing and uneven narration create only confusion; there is no pomp and pomposity ("The Eternal City" in all its glory was never shown to us), and calm elegiac music with a guitar only lulled. The famous chariot racing scene will remain the most famous only in the picture of William Wyaler. As his film will remain famous.

Remakes, reboots, re-imaginings, revamps – whatever you may call them, they're predominantly regarded as unoriginal and/or unnecessary cash-ins. They're not all a waste of time (think The Departed or Let Me In), but it's vapid movies like this that ensure their bad name stays in tact. Lets start with the positives though. With Russian director Timur Bekmambetov (Day Watch, Wanted) behind the camera stylish action sequences are all but guaranteed, and an incredible battle at sea witnessed from below the decks undeniably delivers on this front. He's also lucky his two leading men, Jack Huston as the eponymous persecuted Jew and Toby Kebbell as his vengeful Roman (adopted) brother, are both extremely strong actors who manage to turn even the worst dialogue into semi-watchable melodrama. That's where the praise stops unfortunately, for the rest of the film shouts disaster. The most notable flaw is the casting of Morgan "paycheque" Freeman, who plummets to new depths of awfulness thanks to his phoned-in performance, a lazy and clichéd narration, and a wig that'll enter the hairpiece hall of shame alongside Travolta's hairdo from Battlefield Earth. There are also a plethora of bizarre choices made by the filmmakers, including an embarrassingly out-of-place epilogue featuring Jesus (Rodrigo Santoro) that should've been either fleshed out more throughout the runtime or cut away entirely. As is increasingly common in modern blockbusters there's also a heavy use of CGI – which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing – except here it is woefully underdone and sticks out like a sore thumb, especially in the numerous wide shots attempting to establish scale and grandeur. Perhaps most disappointing is the underwhelming chariot-race finale that, for all its hand-held camera-work and gritty intentions, is stunted by messy editing, weirdly absent violence and poor choreography that fails to hide the dumb conveniences within the race. Capped off with an atrocious song played over the final moments, Ben-Hur 2.0 is a bland and misjudged rehash of a swords-and-sandals classic.

We thoroughly enjoyed this production. Released today, we saw the matinée and were somewhat surprised at being what seemed like the youngest couple attending. You will not be disappointed with this movie. Watching a familiar story, you're waiting for unexpected items or things just plain screwed up. It didn't feel way, and while there are some plot topics that were different from my expectations, I was not bothered by them.

Going to this movie my thoughts were, 1) would a 21st century version make the chariot race be more violent than necessary?, 2) would the faith portion of the story be erased down to a minor thought? 3) would I recognize the story at all? Answers in a simple style are the circus race had me close my eyes a couple of times -- I'm old enough to know how dangerous these races could become, and faith portion was well done and not overplayed presenting the truth of Jesus' life during this period, and the story was well familiar and my wife commented that portions were actually clearer than we had understood from previous versions. So well done! Comparisons: Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is an 1880 American best selling novel. It has been a play and movie multiple times. I found the 1925 silent version of the same title a very impressive production. The 1959 movie "Ben-Hur" is the version most people are familiar with but at 3.5hrs you'll want to find a complete copy of this (and it's one my favourite movies). The '59 movie has more story than today's and the action sequences are somewhat more simplified but very impressive. This Charlton Heston version won 11 Oscars and will be the version of most people's thoughts.

With Morgan Freeman being the only performer I was familiar with, Ben-Hur is great having fresh faces, amazing Italian country sides, and a well paced showing. Go and see this, and find one or two of the other movie versions and maybe the book as well -- so you can make your own comparisons. My wife believes this may now be her favourite, and I'm still committed to the 1959 version. I believe there's enough room for both versions to be enjoyed.

This movie is a remake of classic Ben Hur that won 11 Oscar awards (That I haven't watched yet). The main character of this movie is Judah Ben Hur and he is a fictional character and the title character from Lew Wallace's 1880 novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ.

Ben-Hur is a 2016 American epic historical action drama film directed by Timur Bekmambetov the director of Wanted, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and Hardcore Henry so what do you expect for this movie? THE BLOODY CHARIOT RACING!

I love historical films so I enjoyed this movie, but not a lot! The performance of Rodrigo Santoro as Jesus Christ for me is amazing because his scenes were actually effective to this movie! Aside from Santoro, Jack Huston as Judah Ben-hur and Toby Kebbell as Messala is okay to me, okay means not good but not bad as well.

3 over 5 stars! Not an Oscar worthy movie but a movie for the family!

To me, and quite a number of others, the definitive 'Ben-Hur' version (also the best known) will always be the one from 1959 starring Charlton Heston and directed by William Wyler, a film that epitomises the term epic in every sense and in many ways iconic. A very strong case can also be made for the 1925 silent version, a huge achievement in its day and awe-inspiring in its spectacle.

Unfortunately, this cannot be said for this 2016 version of 'Ben-Hur', nowhere near in the same league as the other two, pretty much insulting to them and the source material, and a mess of a film in its own right. Judging it as a film on its own, a lot of it is disastrously executed and a few good things only just about salvages it from being bottom of the barrel. It's not one of the worst remakes like 'Psycho', 'The Wicker Man', 'Rollerball', 'Ghostbusters' and 'Stepford Wives' to name examples, but to me it's down there with the most pointless and one where one questions "what was the need".

Its least bad assets are some nice scenery, the sea battle scene that delivers on the tension and excitement that is severely lacking elsewhere and Jack Huston. Huston may not be as imposing or as charismatic as Heston especially, but he cuts a dashing figure and brings a quiet dignity to the title role and at least tries to give some likability. Elsewhere, 'Ben-Hur' is a failure.

Visually, only the scenery is halfway decent. It is however wasted by the film constantly being shot in a far too dark and murky way, chaotic cinematography and editing that looks as though it was done on a on-its-last-legs bacon slicer. The CGI is excessive, feels shoe-horned in and gives even more of an inept video game look. Even the costumes look cheap and very anachronistic to boot.

Sea battle apart, the action is undone by clumsy and chaotic choreography/staging, director Timur Bermambetov (directing throughout in a lifeless fashion, highly suggestive that he was not right for the material and clearly had badly misinterpreted it) taking it too far with the brashness and grit and by such a cheap visual look. The chariot race, brilliantly done in the 1925 film and iconic in the 1959 one, is too murkily shot, too choppily edited and too brash to be remotely exciting.

Was not expecting music on the same level as one of a kind Miklos Rozsa, but this aspect was not only uninspired and forgettable it completely jars with the period and like Marco Beltrami had forgotten what kind of film he was scoring for. It's not the only thing that fails to gel. Failing even more are the forced and heavy-handed religious and cultural elements and especially one of 2016's most cringe-worthy, embarrassingly out of place and pointless scenes in Jesus' epilogue.

'Ben-Hur' is very poorly written, with lots of melodrama and awkwardness and no heart or intrigue. The story really struggles to find its own identity and brings forth few ideas of its own. The famous scenes incorporated are completely diminished generally in impact, thanks to the visual ineptitude, being far too brash and breakneck in pace and the over-emphasis on the gritty tone. There is nothing epic here, instead one isn't ever entirely sure whether to consider it a completely soulless biblical drama or a completely humourless parody of 'Life of Brian'.

Regarding the cast, near-uniformly poor. Excepting Huston, who still isn't particularly great. Toby Kebbell fails to bring much threat or complexity to Messala, who is more stock than menacing or conflicted. The scenes between him and Huston are too soap-operatic to be believable. Simonides and Quintas are so mishandled in screen time (under-utilised) and development (one-dimensional) that the point of them being there is questioned. Faring worst are Rodrigo Santoro, trying too hard as Jesus in an interpretation so bizarre and out of kilter it was like he accidentally wandered into the wrong film, and the normally dependable Morgan Freeman looking like he wasn't even trying.

Overall, a mess with a lot of elements executed disastrously. There is definitely far worse out there but this was near-incompetent stuff with a few small salvageable elements. 3/10 Bethany Cox