In the Name of Ben Hur

This is another one of those low-budget, dialogue heavy, movies that probably serves best as a training exercise for just about everyone before and behind the camera. Most of the technical folks behind seem to do adequately at presenting this contrived drama, but those responsible for the "creative" elements have little, if anything, to shout about. The Roman legions are persecuting some rural farmers when they are protected by a big burly stranger. That intervention only serves to irritate the commander though and so the locals try to convince this man to stay and help them, else he will go on his merry way and they will all be bruschetta. With the feisty but pretty hapless "Adrian" (Jonno Davies) first amongst the villagers and persistent, their visitor (Adrian Boucher) eventually decides to stay and, well you can join the very big dots from here. What it does do is suggest that those making it had fun. Dressing up? Yep. Rolling around in the mud hitting folk with sticks? Yep. Pretending to be Charlton Heston? Yep. The closing scene with "Cyprian" (Alan Calton) is the epitome of cinematic serendipity and all-in-all this is pretty feeble. Still, everyone has to start somewhere and maybe the next project any of these work on might benefit from their filmmaking learning curve that begins here. It passes the time, but you will never recall it - even if you were in it.

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"!

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 have all learned by now (I hope) that anything touched by Asylum is garbage. So much garbage. I keep trying to give them a chance, but I keep being disappointed in a big way.

As usual, the acting is sub par, but in this case, that is the best part of the movie. Don't actors know by now, that if you let Asylum infect your life, that you will fail, and only ever be able to act in shitty B movies? That was me, being nice, calling it a B movie, by the way.

Bad soundtracks....really bad....coupled with bad choreography, bad wardrobe, bad hair....honestly, do they really think that some pretty white boy with a 90's boy-band haircut is really cutting it as a vigilante from that era, trying to remove the Romans? That's just lazy.

The production, casting, and direction crews are the worst the industry has to offer. Hands down.

Hot chick with a bow....check. Warrior woman.....check. Overacting main characters....check. Precisely nothing authentic.....check. Cringe inducing travesty....check.

Yep, it's Asylum all right.

One of the worst movies i have ever seen. Well not even sure you can call it a movie it is so bad. Everything about this film is bad. The story is unbelievable, to think a few untrained farmers could defeat trained Roman soldiers and ex-Gladiators is ridiculous. None of the characters looked like they could fight their way out of a paper bag. Could the Romans really only muster half a dozen soldiers in badly fitted Armour, that were so easily defeated by a man with a staff?

The direction is awful and the costumes a joke, (Peter Ormond looked like he was in badly fitted fancy dress.) Jonno Davies ran around like a little boy so out of his depth and really badly cast. It is hard to find any good acting in this movie, but Alan Calton stood out as better than the film itself.

I watched it to the end in the hope that it might get better but it gets worse the more it progresses to the final silly ending.

At times I thought maybe this was a spoof comedy, but on reading the DVD cover discovered it was suppose to be an action film.