Ben-Hur (2016) User Reviews (273)

You already know his name.

[rexking410 · 7/10 · 19 August 2016]

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.

A Shaky Ride to a Solid Finish

[elpravda · 7/10 · 1 March 2020]

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 Did a Beautiful Work of This

[zandernat-1 · 7/10 · 18 August 2016]

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.

Just as epic a story today as it was during Hollywood's golden age!

[RLTerry1 · 7/10 · 17 August 2016]

Paramount Pictures and MGM Studios present the reimagined classic historical drama of Ben-Hur. Appropriately released by two of the most recognized names in the industry hearkening back to the early days of cinema, Ben-Hur plays out almost as well as it did decades ago. Sitting in the auditorium last night, I wondered what it was like to see a larger-than-life nail-biting story on the silver screen when the original was released in 1959, just before the final decline of the former powerhouse of motion picture production, the studio system. The grand experience of this film is only overshadowed by the unusual pacing. Typically epic stories require a minimum of two hours, and typically come close to 3-hour runtimes in order to do the story justice and tell is visually and emotionally in the most impactful way possible; however, this film is just over two hours. This moderately quick pacing hinders one's ability to really appreciate the foreground and background stories. The grandeur of the Roman Empire fails to show as prominently as it should have in this film that bares a striking resemblance to Ridley Scott's Gladiator in many respects. Still, there are many sweeping shots of the Circus (chariot racing arena) that is disappointingly mostly CGI'd. Still, there is something remarkable about this story. Whether you are approaching this film from a historic standpoint (historic in an appreciation for classic Hollywood stories), religious perspective (forgiveness and sacrifice), or simply for the bad ass racing of chariots in a grand arena, you will likely find something to enjoy about this movie.

On the backdrop of the final years of the messiah, Ben-Hur is about a Jewish prince named Judah Beh-Hur (Huston) who is falsely accused and betrayed by his adopted Roman brother Messala Severus (Kebbell). Sentenced to a life of perpetual rowing of Roman galleons in battle, Ben-Hur endears harsh treatment and near-death experiences in order to one day seek his vengeance. Meanwhile, Messala becomes a war hero and favorite of the people and the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. When the destruction of his shop opens the door for escape, Ben-Hur finds himself washed upon the shore to be picked up by a wealthy African (Freeman) who races chariots--or pays for young men to race chariots. Striking a deal between them, the wealthy African and Ben-Hur work together to train for Ben-Hur to defeat Massala in the circus in order to reclaim his name and truly hit the Romans where it hurts--losing at their own game.

One of the most unique aspects to this film is the parallel plot between the background and foreground, the plot and subplot. At the end of the day, the message of Ben-Hur is one of forgiveness. The forgiveness between brothers and the forgiveness of Christ. Although this is not a film based upon the story of the messiah (or passion), the character of Jesus is an important element in the journey from vengeance to forgiveness. On three occasions, Ben-Hur encounters Jesus, not knowing who he is. Each of these chance meetings can be read as symbolic of the different acts (or stages) in the film itself. As the story of the passion of the Christ is one that many recognize (even those who are not Christians), it helps to get an idea of what is going on in the background at the same time at the story at the forefront of the film.

Cinematically, the film was a little disappointing. It feels like a lot of potential and opportunity for incredible cinematography and production design was wasted. Although there are many wide or establishing shots, the majority of the film consists of American medium shots. It would have been exciting to see more of the physical world of Jerusalem and the Roman Empire but instead we spend a lot of time indoors or in close proximity to our cast. Likewise, I would have liked to have seen more in the way of physical production design. The world on screen should have been one that I could have almost felt. Furthermore, I find that the pacing of the film was not adequate enough to actually tell the story in the manner in which it should have. It's mostly like there was a 2.5-3hr movie condensed into a typical 2hr runtime. Sometimes epic films are guilty of way too much exposition, but Ben-Hur definitely could've benefited from additional development and exposition. Everything just happens too quickly and with minimal challenge.

Chariot racing. That is synonymous with Ben-Hur. And you will get plenty of horses, chariots, and crashes. Not unlike NASCAR of today, chariot racing was all about the violence and crashes. Thousands of spectators gathered to watch heroes battle it out on the ground of the circus (or race track) to see who will be the "first to finish...last to die." Many early films were more concerned about the spectacle of cinema more so than the story or message. After all, MGM's famous logo states Ars Gratia Artis (latin for "art for art's sake"), meaning the goal of cinema was to contribute to the wold of the visual and performing arts. Not necessarily to entertain, although that is certainly part of it, but to create beauty, intrigue, and push the boundaries of the mind and eye. One of the most mesmerizing elements of the original Ben-Hur was the chariot racing. Likewise, the most exciting parts of this new incarnation are the sights, sounds, and spectacle of the chariot races.

Although there are certainly areas of the film that disappointed me, as I have mentioned, I highly recommend for anyone who appreciates historic dramas that wax nostalgic the days of the golden age of Hollywood. And who doesn't love a great chariot race???

Fairy tale version

[harry_tk_yung · 18 August 2016]

Remakes come in various shapes and sizes. Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" is a shot-for-shot remake. Ridley Scott's "Exodus" is his own statement of the iconic Biblical event, entirely different from Cecil B. DeMille's masterpiece "The Ten Commandments". Most interesting is Yoji Yamada's "Tokyo Family" which is an updated version of Yasujiro Ozu's immortal "Toyko Story", one so cleverly done that it is well worthy of the original (although some Ozu loyalist may disagree).

Timur Bekmambetov, whose claim to a place in the film industry is in his expertise in respectable zombie and vampire movies, is not in the same league as master William Wyler. Still, Ben Hur (2016) is not a total write-off provided that you don't waste any money on a 3D version.

Ben Hur (1959) was structured on three building blocks comprising two set pieces and the Biblical element. Of the two set pieces, the chariot race is unquestionably the highlight while the sea battle is extra entertainment. A "zealot" might have said that "Ben Hur" IS the chariot race. I have not mentioned the "human story" as that is supposed to be the basic building block of a vast majority of motion pictures anyway.

Still, let us take a look at the human story first, through the characters. I wouldn't bother with name of most of the actors. For the old one, they are mostly well known; for the new one, they are mostly unknown. The historical background and the love-hate relationship between Judah Ben-Hur and Messala Severus are essentially unchanged. The most striking change is in the role of Quintius which, played by Jack Hawkins, was pivotal as Ben-Hur's mentor in his return with a challenge to Messala. In the remake, while Quintius is still there, his importance is much dwindled and the character is out of the picture (no pun intended) after the sea battle.

The role of Ben-Hur's mentor is doubled up by Arabian chief and racing-chariot owner Ilderim. In 1959, this role earned Hugh Griffith his Best Supporting Actor Oscar. This year, Morgan Freeman is unlikely to aspire to any Oscar claim but that does not take anything away from his solid performance of a character that, in this movie, in addition to the name Ilderim, may also aspire to a nickname "God". That may even be one of the reasons Freeman is cast, as who can claim to be more qualified to play God, after his "Evan Almighty"? While on this reference to divinity, albeit on a figurative basis, just a quick mention that in 1959, the face of Jesus was never shown, if I remember correctly. This inhibition is of course long gone and Jesus, with appearances in only a few scenes, is played by Rodrigo Santoro.

There is really not that much more to say other than echoing my earlier comment that this movie is not a total write off. The key set piece, the chariot race, is quite well made. The acting will not excite you but are passable. The cast, other than Freeman, is relatively unknown but I would not leave out mentioning Ayelet Zurer who plays Ben-Hur's mother. You may remember her running all over the place with Tom Hanks in "Angels & Demons".

Oh yes, my summary line. You may find it difficult to hold back a chuckle seeing the fairy-tale ending slapped onto this movie.

Modern and spectacular version about the known hero being sent into slavery , set in the Roman empire at the time of Christ .

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 8 January 2019]

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

Another Hollywood remake...

[DanielRobertRoss · 4/10 · 19 August 2016]

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.

A good movie when taken on its own terms.

[wingsofhope-92703 · 7/10 · 20 August 2016]

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.

Compares poorly with earlier versions

[drjgardner · 4/10 · 9 September 2016]

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.

How can Ben-Hur be too low key?

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 21 May 2018]

Rich Jew Judah Ben-Hur is sent to the galleys by Messala, his youthful best friend, because of an attack from his roof during a Roman parade. Escaping after 5 years as a galley slave he seeks to take revenge on Messala by beating him in a chariot race. After the race, the blood from Jesus' crucifixion cures Judah's mother and sister of leprosy and takes the hate from Judah's heart.

The danger of a remake is pitching the new film in a place where it is different enough so that it isn't pointless, but captures enough of what made the original work. And the original, here (if one ignores other versions), was a multi-Oscar winning, sprawling Biblical epic. So what Timur (Wanted) Bekmambetov has done here is capture the main story beats, but changed almost everything else.

The almost homoerotic jealousy which drove the relationship between Charlton Heston and Stephen Boyd in Wyler's epic is, here, replaced by a most unexpected fraternal bromance in which the driving force appears to be Messala's wish to impress Judah's mother (I am deliberately not spoilering a plot element here). This lengthy opening sequence, albeit seasoned with a couple of flash-forwards, gives the story-teling a completely different rhythm to the 1959 version.

Visually, there is some good stuff, with production value well on display. Locations, particularly the location which substitutes for Jerusalem, are mostly spectacular (with the exception of the early, rather jarring, appearance of the overly-familiar Vasquez Rocks), the chariot race is well-staged, and the CGI sea battle is more convincing than Heston's toy boats (although, curiously, far less exciting).

But there are two areas where the film falls down. One is the script which is, at best, functional, but often rather feeble. And the other is that, with the exception of Rodrigo Santoro's Jesus and Nazanin Boniadi's Esther, none of the performers offer anything beyond photogenic competence. There is nothing to match Heston's sheer presence or Boyd's passionate malice. This film is in an altogether lower key. Even Morgan Freeman's usual gravitas is undermined by his out-of-place American accent.

I enjoyed this, especially because it gave me much which I did not expect. But it is not an epic.

I Can Never Get My Two Hours Back

[tputter · 1/10 · 12 September 2016]

Where do I begin with such a deplorable movie? Let's start with cinematography. The vast majority of the scenes are filmed in a frustrating haze of darkness; the excessive use of close-ups is nauseating; and, worst of all, the camera is constantly jerking throughout the film, which left me with a splitting headache when I left the theater.

When compared with the classic 1959 version, the 2016 story is as humorously silly as it is shamefully insulting. Here's just a few examples: In the chariot race, our hero falls out of his chariot; manages, somehow, to hold on to the reins; is dragged for an entire lap around the arena; finds the incredible strength to pull himself up back into the chariot; and, most astounding, not a scratch is on him. Oh, by the way, Ben-Hur's chariot breaks up at the end, permitting him to have a climatic finish, literally rolling across the finish line.

Then, there is Ben-Hur's mother and sister, who are miraculously cured of leprosy, but they do not have a clue as to whom they owe this miracle. They are totally unsympathetic characters - as, in fact, all of them are.

The adoption of Ben-Hur by Roman Counsel Quintus Arius, which is crucial for setting the dramatic scene of Ben-Hur's return to Jerusalem from the galleys, is totally missing. Instead, in this latest version, Ben-Hur is reduced to a fugitive slave, running from the Judean authorities like a scared rabbit.

In the 1959 version, the evil Macella dies in the chariot race, but with his last breath informs a bewildered Ben-Hur - in a triumphant tone - that his mother and sister are lepers and that "the race goes on." Ben-Hur, naturally, is crushed by the news. In the 2016 version, in stark contrast, Macella lives (minus a leg); the two tearfully forgive each other; and, at very the end, they ride off on horses into the sunset like some Grade B western.

Please. PLEASE! Watch the critically-acclaimed 1959 version and you will enjoy perhaps the greatest Hollywood film of all time. However, if you choose, like me, to go see this latest version out of curiosity, remember that you have been warned.

actually pretty good

[adi-bac3 · 8/10 · 22 August 2016]

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..

More than even

[robertofeldman · 7/10 · 3 March 2020]

I think this is my first review after years, but I just think that most of the qualifications are done comparing the original. Please, there is no comparison, but that doesn't mean that is a very well done movie. I have qualified over 2000 and I think I have some criteria. Give it a chance jajajaja the original is much better, but this one deserves more than 7.

A failure of a Hollywood blockbuster

[Fiurilli · 2/10 · 30 August 2016]

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

Could been worse - could been better

[Mohrwyn · 6/10 · 11 December 2016]

This was one of those movies that I hesitated to watch, because of the very simple reason that it's a hell of a job to shoot a remake that at least equals the original on story-line, feeling, play...

With that in mind and still a bit worried about what I was about to spent two hours of time on, I sat down and watched. It wasn't a waste of time, but I wasn't really exited either.

In general I was right, it by far didn't match up to the original movie with Charlton Heston. To start with his counterpart, Jack Huston did a nice job for the main reason that he didn't simply tried to copy Charlton Heston. He put his own Judah Ben-Hur on screen. And no, not as strong and catching as Charlton did, but Jack showed us a decent Judah, fitting the new story-line.

One of the things that was really nice in this version was the background story of the friendship between Judah and Messala. How it was originated and how they got so close. At the same time the somewhat softness of (mainly) Messala was a bit of a downfall for me. For me there was a lack of expression on both characters, which made them a bit flat. Again, to me it seems fitting to the whole new story-line, so I'm not going to blame it on Jack and Toby Kebbel (Messala).

Even though I have to agree that the whole part of Judah going to Rome, get a new Roman family and become a wealthy heir to his former galley-master (in the original movie) is not necessary for the story, I somehow missed the interaction which explains a lot about Judah and show even more the kind of man he is. I can't tell if they intended to bring that back by the somewhat extended time Judah spends with Ilderim (Morgan Freeman), but if so, they didn't succeed.

While the scenes at sea and in the circus could haven been amazingly better due to all the new technical stuff we have these days, I feel that it isn't. It's not worse either, but to my opinion it could have been way, way better. To me it was pretty much equal to what we saw in the original movie.

I don't know why they decided to choose to let Messala live at the end, nor why they move away from Jerusalem. I also don't know why Drusus seems to have such an important role (which wasn't really all that important anyway) and did what he did for Naomi and Thirza. And where they filled in some gaps of the original movie, they created new ones in this version.

Somehow this movie has a remarkable happy end, compared to the original. Which to me doesn't feel right. It is a sad story. It is a sad time in history, a sad thing that happens between Messala and Judah, a sad inline historical view of Jesus death. And yes, some good happens to come out of it, but to me there should be a feeling of sadness and hope at the end of the story. Not the happiness in this version, that forgot all the hate and anger there also was.

As I said... could've been worse, but definitely could've been better...

Mixed blessings.

[ppardoematthews · 6/10 · 17 September 2016]

The big question is, how does the 2016 version of "Ben-Hur" compare with its 1959 counterpart? To start with, the whole story is told in about the same duration as just Part One of the 1959 epic, so there are lots of plot and character reductions. Totally missing is Quintus Arrius, who was central to both the sea battle and for setting up Judah Ben-Hur's subsequent bid for freedom and his chariot racing career via adoption into Roman society. Someone called Quintus does crop up in a very minor role, but is probably not the same person at all. Jesus Christ's appearances, although significant, are very limited, almost to the extent of making him anonymous, so non-believers will need to dust off their family Bibles to work out what he was all about, not that you'll find any reference to Ben-Hur in either the New or Old Testaments. Little is shown of the Hur household to suggest status; they come across as fairly ordinary people, sufficiently well-to-do to maintain a family of home-helps and the odd refugee, but they don't boast quite the opulence implied in the 1959 version. However, they obviously look after their roof tiles; in fact their DIY is so good that dodgy roofing doesn't need to be featured at all in the entry to Jerusalem "accident".

Typical of Twenty-First Century screen presentations, the plot commences with an exciting preview of the famous chariot race to get the audience's adrenalin rushing before settling down to tell the story that led up to it. Unexpectedly, more is actually shown and told of Judah's early relationship with Messala in the new version, also Judah's marriage to Esther is established early on, and Judah's mother has changed her name yet again (since the 2010 TV series). Sheik Ilderim does a very thorough job coaching Judah in the finer technicalities of chariot driving to the extent that his enthusiasm for tutoring overlaps into the race itself, nearly scuppering the whole exercise (visions of an uncontrollable football manager invading the touchline), not that Judah would have heard what was being shouted at him above the pandemonium because Bluetooth wasn't around that long ago. The chariot race of 2016 itself looks highly convincing as the cameras aren't obviously under-cranked to simulate greater speeds than the actors/stunt team were actually capable of achieving in the 1959 version without risking unnecessary casualties; also, modern CGI has done away with wobbly back-projection, and works to very good effect except for depicting the misadventures of a runaway horse. The naval scenes earlier in the story are shown almost entirely from below deck, so you can't see where the filming tank joins up with the scenic backdrop; frustratingly, during the battle you don't see much else, either. At the conclusion of the film there is an unexpected double happy-ending twist to the story – a means perhaps of opening the door for at least one obligatory sequel, if not a lengthy franchise. Maybe by then the chariots will have grown wings, and Ben-Hur will be in conflict with the Son of Smaug.

The whole story whizzes along at a relentless pace, thanks to the camera being almost constantly mobile and hand-held, often very shakily regardless of the subject matter (never heard of Steadicam?), making the whole thing look as if it has been shot by an excited child who keeps looking back over his shoulder to seek his parents' approval instead of concentrating on what is actually being framed in the viewfinder. One can only surmise how vomit inducing this must look in an IMAX theatre. The high edit count makes the effort seem more like a salvage job than a work of art, and some horrendous jump cuts are employed to speed up the narrative. Worse, much of the film is shot in telescopic perspective, cramming the screen with close-ups as though intended to be shown on a small TV stuck in a corner of the living room instead of in the grandeur of a cinema. Even from the back of a standard auditorium this "blown-up" effect is very in-your-face, that doesn't allow the 3-D much depth opportunity except in the big action set pieces where it is given a rare chance to stretch out, and then it looks amazing.

There are few big names in the leading parts, avoiding the distraction of guessing who's playing who. The main characters are well drawn with the exception of Pontius Pilate who comes over even weaker and more stupid than he may have been (possibly miscast but actually played by a very competent and normally impressive actor, so his portrayal could have been intentional). Everyone appears very natural for the times and places depicted – the men look suitably tanned and unkempt, although the principal protagonists do get a "Toni&Guy" makeover for their potentially terminal arena appearance; the women hardly come from a cat-walk background, yet are very charismatic. Much of the architecture is appropriately mundane except for public edifices. In contrast to the squeaky-clean Charlton Heston version, there is a true-to-life rawness here. Even the sun rarely seems to shine, and everything looks a lot greyer than in 1959 Technicolor, not that one is given much chance to admire the scenery. Has our air pollution really worsened so much in half a century?

It's quite likely that people with a modicum of perception would describe this "Ben-Hur" as interesting, rather than notable. 2016 youngsters will surely lap it up as a yet another tour de force of crash-bang-wallop entertainment, just as the kids of 1959 enjoyed their version for its sheer majesty, a cast to die for, and the way it drew its audience into the depths of the story – and still does, many years later. Dare one surmise that by the time the current version gets issued on Blu-ray its cinema release will have been exiled into insignificance by the latest "must-see" attraction?

And the Oscar for the greatest screw up in a motion picture

[jpm-387-613125 · 4/10 · 9 September 2016]

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.

A good representation of Roman games and family honour

[kencossaboon · 7/10 · 23 March 2017]

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.

Typical Faith-Based Market Film.

[phatdan · 2/10 · 2 September 2016]

I have sympathy for younger audiences who will probably never experience being mesmerized by a movie. As a 10-year-old in 1959, 'Ben-Hur' was an experience on the movie screen.

Faith-based movies are made by cash grabbers who know they have a market. At 100 million, it appears most of the money and time was put into CGI effects. Both the galley ship war and the chariot race were very well done. But the rest of the film displays some of the worse casting, screenplay, and directing that I've ever seen. The music score is uninspired.

Word is out that this film does better at centering around Christ. Non-sense. Jesus is presented in the new film almost as a cliché. To reveal Christ, the 1959 offering utilized subtle visual concepts to suggest Jesus' divinity. This in keeping with the novel's and the 1959 rendition's title: 'Ben-Hur; A Tale of the Christ'.

The ending is so profoundly adolescent that it is embarrassing.

Not an Oscar worthy movie but a movie for the family!

[akosijesu · 7/10 · 17 August 2016]

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!

Loses the race

[Findoz · 4/10 · 31 August 2016]

I have watched the 1959 version maybe 10 times and I love it, as does my 19 year old daughter who has seen it at least as many times. Neither of us is a believer in God, but we are fascinated by movie magic and we went together to the opening. I was actually a bit fearful when I went to the theater but still hoped that I wouldn't be too disappointed. But ...

Yes, I know this is a movie in its own right and one should not compare to the classic '59 masterpiece - but how can you avoid it?

Seen as a pure action movie it is quite okay and well crafted. The acting is ... well, okay - except for Morgan Freeman who is unbelievably wooden as an almost God-like figure, a nice Big Daddy who steps in to explain and arrange everything for the best. Jack Huston as Ben-Hur, though, is rather good.

But the movie just lacks the poetry and magic of the 1959 epic (the 1925 version is actually more worth seeing). Yes - the cinematic technique is of course better than in the predecessors, especially in the galley scenes, and it is visually stunning. So why isn't it as gripping and exciting?

Pro primo: The tragedy of the "original" (I refer to the 1959 epic although I know it is NOT the original movie) story is that it begins with the accident that sentences Ben-Hur to the galleys. An accident! In this movie Ben-Hur is actually hiding a rioter which makes the whole premise a bit shaky. In a way you have to understand Messala's decision to through "his" people into jail - or he would probably himself be cast into roman prison. The character of Messala is designed to attract more sympathy than in the "original", and it does and you feel sorry for him, but ... as a consequence the story just fails to build up to the climax - one really doesn't care who wins or loses the damn race.

As technically spectacular as it is, this version manages to distort and bungle the greatest action sequence in movie history: The chariot race. It is drenched in fiery music to build suspense and chopped to pieces in editing so that you hardly understand who is who and what is happening among the clouds of dust. Just like tens of dozens of other action movie sequences with or without crashing cars. Oh, what a pity.

The 1959 chariot race is pure nail-biting suspense for about ten minutes ENTIRELY WITHOUT MUSIC to boost suspense. Just the sound of the hooves, the shouts, the lashing whips and the roars from the crowd. And it is the most thrilling action sequence ever made, without any CGI tricks. What a feat! I always suspected this race sequence couldn't be topped, and it obviously couldn't.

This movie also lacks the beautiful score by Miklós Rósza, a musical masterpiece in itself (in the 1959 version).

One absolutely ridiculous thing is when the end credits start sliding around the race track gathering dust! Why?? We couldn't help ourselves laughing out loud instead of feeling elated and moved by the love message.

If you ever get the chance to see the 1959 Ben-Hur in a really good movie theater: GO! It is still unsurpassed among the great epic blockbusters and truly moving - whether you believe in Jesus or not.

I hope that young people as a consequence of this movie may get curious and discover the Ben-Hur of 1959.

Everyone will be making comparisons; see it and compare

[racliff · 9/10 · 19 August 2016]

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.

Remakes: We've Ben-Hur before

[rgkarim · 7/10 · 20 August 2016]

In 1959 the world was introduced to Ben-Hur, a movie that today remains on many top movie lists. So of course Hollywood, would be ready for a remake in this golden age of well… remakes. My final review of the weekend is on the latest rendition of the classic tale that promises the entire plot with more of the action. So let's get started shall we?

LIKES: • Sticks to the story • Acting • The chariot scene finale

With remakes sometimes comes a major plot overhaul, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad. In Timur Bekmambetov's production the story is pretty consistent with its 55- year-old predecessor. The backbone is essentially the same, but they have made a few tweaks such a making Messala, Judah's brother and using assassination as the means of starting war instead of a tile falling from the ceiling. Some of these additions I think make the drama more gripping, and others were a little more long-winded and overdramatic. At least most of these additions added to the plot and allowed us to get closer and more involved with Ben-Hur's tale. I liked most of the plot points myself, despite rolling my eyes at times, and welcomed the additions. I also welcomed the acting, with Jack Huston being an extraordinary Ben-Hur of the modern age. He captures the noble side of the character well and did a decent job for most of the hopeless romantic scenes as well. I can't lie that his deep brooding voice, sounded a lot like a comical Batman impression and his shaken faith moments were a bit overdone, but overall he did a nice job. Toby Kebell also does the role of Messala well too, though he is a bit more overbearing and brash compared to Huston and bleeds over to the overacted realm a few times. But these two sync with each other well, and both have a great chemistry with the rest of the cast making for a believable crew that you fall into place with. And as promised, the chariot scene was quite the display of technical ingenuity the modern day Hollywood. The sequence is well put together, with the cinematography capturing all the glorious chaos and action in glorious detail. Its stable, multi angled, and all designed to maximize emotion without making you sick (take a look at this Michael Bay). Now throw in a killer symphony score and sound editing and you get the next component that brings the 15 minutes of adrenaline pumping shots to full force. Finally, throw in some beautifully choreographed moments and planned accidents and you get the complete picture that immerses you into the moment. It certainly was a fitting ending to the tale.

DISLIKES: • Some of the Drama overdone • Writing is surprisingly lacking at parts • The savage nature of the film As mentioned earlier, the writers of the script added some good story elements to the mix, but there were parts that were a little overdone. Many of these parts often had to do with the mother and sister roles, very shallow moments that did not add much to the plot for me. The obsession from that point on led to a lot of circular arguments that were not impressive to me and kept the plot from moving along. A few other character introductions and building rivalries were almost not needed, for the characters weren't on screen long enough to really add much to the story other than fodder for the violent moments. This brings me to the next dislike: the lacking writing. For a movie all about finding faith and challenging the reign of the prestigious Roman Empire, you would have thought there would be more boisterous and moving speeches. There are a few of these pride-stimulating moments, but much of Ben-Hur's dialogue has been reduced to casual conversations where testosterone leads to a semi heated complaining match. Morgan Freeman probably has the best conversations of the bunch when he interacts with the group, filled with the wisdom and enlightenment this time in history was famous for. In addition Esther (Nazanin Boniadi) also had a few wise moments though not as well thought out. While you certainly aren't there for the writing, it was something that I had hoped would match the intensity of the 50s film. Finally comes the savage nature of the film. Yes, I know times were horrendous back then and the might of the army was merciless and not shy of brutality. Still I didn't expect so much focus on it. Ben-Hur's modern day graphics truly amplify the reality of suffering as both Roman and Jewish citizens are burned, maimed, and crushed under the wrath of entertainment. Some of the violence was indeed necessary, but the cruelty towards the horses in this film was a little too focused for my liking. Yes it does bring you into the heat of the moment and I did feel the suspense building. But seeing those horses (even CGI ones) suffer was not entertaining to me. The violence is certainly fitting, but those with weak constitutions might want to stick to the 50s lower technical qualities.

The VERDICT

Ben-Hur is one of the better remakes I have seen in a while, and has many of the elements we fell in love with all those years ago. The actors play their roles nicely and the modern day graphics certainly bring the world to life and immerse you into the entire story. But it is a remake that is a bit more savage and is does not hold anything really special to constitute a trip to theater, with the exception of the few action scenes. Yet those looking for a good historical, action, drama will get their fill, but I recommend waiting on this one to grace RedBox.

My scores:

Adventure/Drama/History: 7 Movie Overall: 7

Bland and misjudged. Furthers the bad reputation of remakes.

[Troy_Campbell · 3/10 · 26 August 2016]

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.

Descent Remake

[stevendbeard · 6/10 · 19 August 2016]

I saw "Ben-Hur", starring Jack Huston-Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, The Longest Ride; Toby Kebbell-Warcraft, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes; Rodrigo Santoro-The 33, The Last Stand and Morgan Freeman-London Has Fallen, Ted 2.

This is a remake. And not the first one, either. There was a silent movie in 1925, the Charlton Heston 1959 classic, a Broadway play and even a TV mini-series. Most people I know, have fond memories of the Charlton Heston version-I don't think I've seen any of the other ones. This one is pretty good but changes a few things. Jack/Ben_Hur is a rich prince with Toby as his adopted half brother. They were best friends growing up but as adults, they grew apart. Toby leaned towards the domineering Romans and goes off to join the army. When circumstances cause the brothers to cross paths again, Toby is in charge of security to the Roman leaders. When an assassination attempt on one of those leaders points to Jack-who is innocent, by the way-Toby has Jack sent away to be imprisoned as a rowing slave on a Roman ship for the rest of his life. He escapes and meets Morgan, an African gambler/entrepreneur that likes to bet on chariot races, a popular Roman pastime because of the lording it over the peasants thing. Guess who the Roman's best racer is? If you guessed Toby, you are right. Jack thinks this would be a good chance to get his revenge. The chariot races look pretty good and I don't see how no animals were hurt making the movie-some of the crashes looked lethal. Rodrigo is playing Jesus and he tries to convince Jack to turn the other cheek and have forgiveness for his brother, in a non- violent way, of course. There are religious undertones throughout the movie but it is only in light touches, it's not like they are just preaching a Sunday morning sermon. It's rated "PG-13" for violence and disturbing images and has a running time of 2 hours & 4 minutes. It is a descent remake but I don't think I would buy it on DVD. It would be good as a rental.