In the Name of Ben Hur

I feel that this film is more "Ivanhoe" than a biblical epic. The Romans are mostly depicted as arrogant and selfish. As a film for a mature audience I think this film leaves much to be desired. It is more like an adventure film. Children, however, may therefore find it both exciting and thrilling. The characters are either good or bad, only a few shades of gray, which is important for a kiddie audience.

The film was reminiscent of a low-budget TV film.

The plot of a young warrior learning the trade from an older warrior has been borrowed from lots of earlier films. The premise that a warrior assembles an uneven bunch of amateur fighters to defeat a superior enemy has also been shown in films many times in the past.

We might call In the name of Ben-Hur, Judah Ben-Hur the later years and since he was doing his thing back in Judea around the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, he's had an interesting life. In the years of Nero's reign time and circumstance have brought him to Lusitania which we now call Portugal. One day Ben-Hur retired and wandering saves the life of young Jonno Davies who is protecting his sister from the depravities of some legionnaires.

But that's for openers. The governor has hit upon a brilliant scheme to keep Nero happy send him some women from the province. Had it been Caligula they were trying to please it would have been young twinks. Of course the locals including Davies aren't real happy about this.

In fact Davies importunes Adrian Bouchet playing the middle aged Ben-Hur to train his posse as gladiators, the better to fight the Romans. Therein lies the tale.

Although there are references to the two classic films and Lew Wallace's novel including one big one in the end which if you haven't seen either the film or read the novel you won't understand the climax, there's one big glaring error. Judah Ben-Hur was NOT a gladiator in the original story, he made his bones as a chariot racer as we well know. He's asked to train the kids in gladiatorial combat which wasn't his thing.

Bouchet, Davies, and the rest look like folks whose paychecks have cleared knowing they're in a scavenger of a movie made to take advantage of a third remake of Ben-Hur coming out.

Lew Wallace, Charlton Heston, and Ramon Novarro would not be pleased.

Have made no secret in the past of intensely disliking, and even outright hating a lot, a vast majority of The Asylum's (near-universally maligned for good reason) output, though there is curiosity as to whether they are capable of making something good and compulsive about their output's badness. Admittedly, The Asylum do have a small group of watchable films and the occasional (big emphasis on that word) above average one, unfortunately outweighed by the lacklustre at best and often dreadful films they churn out.

Did not watch 'In the Name of Ben-Hur' with high expectations. It looked horrid and some of it sounded ridiculous. Saw it however out of curiosity, as part of my low-budget film quest (yes, have got a good deal of quests going on, some of them completest ones) and especially because the story of Ben-Hur has lent itself well to film.

A story that deserved an infinitely better film than 'In the Name of Ben-Hur'. It really does Ben-Hur an injustice and manages to be even worse than it looked and even more of a mess than indicated in the premise. That it is not a waste of a good concept film made me less annoyed than some other films seen recently. My annoyance though is aimed at how poorly done in every single way 'In the Name of Ben-Hur' is. 2016's 'Ben-Hur' was not a good film at all but one appreciates that film a little more when watching the amateur hour execution seen here.

Nothing good going on here. The acting lacks any kind of passion or emotion, even skill or direction. No exceptions here, Jonno Davies especially is completely out of his depth.

'In the Name of Ben-Hur's' uncharismatic, wimpy and annoying character writing and writing that is far too excessively ridiculous to be guilty pleasure cheese and too awkward and dull to be tongue in cheek works against them. As well as non-existent direction.

Direction that fails to convey any urgency, tension, fun, suspense or emotion in the numerous scenes that need them. The action-oriented scenes are the complete anti-thesis of exciting, are poorly filmed and looks so awkward in the choreography. The whole story is just lifeless, completely fails to make any sense at all and on the wrong side of daft that it's insultingly ridiculous. Nothing suspenseful or fun here.

Visually, 'In the Name of Ben-Hur' looks cheap as sin, with an overuse of truly risible special effects that never gels with the setting or looks real, dizzying camera work and editing and shoe-string budget production and costume design. The music is ill-fitting and not appealing on the ear. Alan Calton, the only actor who tries, is the least bad thing about the film.

In conclusion, really bad. 2/10 Bethany Cox

With the risible Hollywood remake of BEN HUR stinking up cinemas recently, it's good to keep an open mind and look at this movie in context. Made for a fraction of the cost of the Jack Huston - Morgan Freeman version, there's a lot to like here.

Lara Heller's Lucia and Alan Carlton's Cyprian stood out for me and I would be interested in searching out other films they've been in.

Not aware of Asylum's previous titles, which I notice a lot of the other reviews criticize. Maybe bad experiences in the past has meant other viewers have gone in expecting bad things and looking for them. I don't know. I, for one, enjoy this period in film.

There I was, expecting a remake of the original,or thereabouts.Okay so I wasn't expecting the huge Cinematic blockbuster that was the original, but come on! Was this meant to be tongue-In-cheek? No,but It certainly seems that way. My first worries began when I discovered that the filming locations were In Wales. Now, parts of Wales are spectacularly beautiful, but Ben-Hur and the Welsh valleys Just don't gel, It certainly wouldn't have been at the top of my list of "suitable locations", but these are only my opinions of course - each to his or her own, as they say. That said, the 19th century dry-stone walls built by Welsh farmers do seem a little out of place. The running time of 1.5 hours, less than half the length of the original, didn't bode well. The costumes. Too clean and bright and suitable only at a fancy dress party. Cleanliness, obvious make up, strategically-placed "dirt" on faces, trimmed facial-hair and perfectly manicured nails add to what comes across more like an episode of a kids tea-time drama than an epic-remake. Where are the advances In Cinematic skills and technology which allow film-makers to create realism like never before? Erm...absent. As for the acting, mediocre across the board Is quiet a generous statement. For those who've never seen the 1959 epic and view this entirely on Its own merit, perhaps who also have little or no Interest In historical accuracy (and there's nothing wrong In that), or who view the whole and have no concern for the parts which make up that whole, then this Movie may Just entertain you a little, or maybe even more so. Despite my negativity, I do however think that the younger element will like It (and no-doubt find the original rather overstretched and boring) as It does have Its share of action and drama. But for those over 21 I'd have to say "Your time could be much better spent"!