Ben-Hur

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.