CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.7/10
49 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Judá Ben-Hur, un príncipe falsamente acusado de traición por su hermano adoptivo, un oficial del ejército romano, regresa a su patria después de años en el mar para buscar venganza, pero se ... Leer todoJudá Ben-Hur, un príncipe falsamente acusado de traición por su hermano adoptivo, un oficial del ejército romano, regresa a su patria después de años en el mar para buscar venganza, pero se topa con la redención.Judá Ben-Hur, un príncipe falsamente acusado de traición por su hermano adoptivo, un oficial del ejército romano, regresa a su patria después de años en el mar para buscar venganza, pero se topa con la redención.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 2 premios ganados y 3 nominaciones en total
Sofia Black-D'Elia
- Tirzah Ben-Hur
- (as Sofia Black D'Elia)
Haluk Bilginer
- Simonides
- (as Haluk Biligner)
Yasen Zates Atour
- Jacob
- (as Yasen Atour)
Gabriel Lo Giudice
- Elijah
- (as Gabriel Farnese)
Jarreth J. Merz
- Florus
- (as Jarreth Merz)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
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.
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..
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaDirector Timur Bekmambetov insisted that the chariot circus be built for real, and be realized with as little computer graphics imagery as possible. He felt it was absolutely necessary, to make the chariot race look and feel realistic.
- Errores(at around 12 mins) As Judah walks through the market, the traders are emptying baskets of chili peppers that fill the entire foreground of the shot. These peppers were introduced to the world when Diego Álvarez Chanca, a physician on Columbus' second voyage to the West Indies in 1493, brought the first chili peppers to Spain and first wrote about their medicinal effects in 1494.
- Créditos curiososThe end credits for the director, producer and department heads are animated to look like they fly across the race track, kicking up dust as if they were horse-drawn chariots.
- ConexionesFeatured in Vecherniy Urgant: Vyacheslav Malafeev/Timur Bekmambetov/IOWA (2016)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Ben-Hur?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- Бен-Гур
- Locaciones de filmación
- Matera, Basilicata, Italia(Exterior)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 100,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 26,410,477
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 11,203,815
- 21 ago 2016
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 94,061,311
- Tiempo de ejecución2 horas 3 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What was the official certification given to Ben-Hur (2016) in India?
Responda