Ben-Hur

Reno 5/16/2024 3:18:33 PM 8.4

**They've grown up together and later turned up to each other.** I had seen the old film and I liked that. So remake means we expect nothing less than a visual spectacular and this film had them at its best, including many more great features, but the real stars are missing. It was a let down without any notable performances. Besides, the idea of upgrading the story was good, though not everyone going to like that. Particularly the one who loved the old film or the versions. The length is justified. For the kind of story the film narrates, the pace was very good. So for me this is not a bad flick, but just some key features missing like I said the star value. For the first timers, like today's generation, this film might work, but for the others most probably not. And the end was disappointing, because it felt like watching a Disney film that made for children and families. I think the director of 'Wanted' did his job as it required. Definitely not an unnecessary remake, but should have been careful in the historic events. Overall, it fell short of depth. You won't feel emotions and/or the character's struggle. In the end it became just an entertainment product and if you expect beyond that, you are only responsible for that. So good luck with the watch if you are yet to give it a try. _5/10_

5rJoud 7/4/2021 1:17:40 PM 8.4

**Booooooring** As with most major productions, "Ben-Hur (2016)" gets an extra star for production value. Bad camera, unlikable characters, ugly costumes, this film has it all. Early on the two brothers are introduced, who will have their biblical vendetta throughout this movie. Clearly the adopted one is supposed to be the bad guy, while the viewer is encouraged to root for the Jew. But questionable decision making of the 'hero' paired with the comical anti-Semitism which permeates America is going to bring the audience over to the side of the scarred underdog, whose name is not in the title. This movie would have been great, if it had ended with the arrest of the rich fool, who harbored a fanatic in his home and didn't even have the good sense to guard him, or the variety of weapons he kept in open display. Unfortunately it goes on and on, and no doubt "Ben-Hur" will learn a thing or two about life, love and combat during the 2 hours ordeal. But will that count as character development, and will it sway your favor back to him when he finally mounts his cart and races his brother for the final time? I don't know, you watch this drivel, and you decide. 26 November 2016 I am migrating my reviews from a different site which has become simply garbage. TMDB looks awesome and I look forward to be a part of it.

Filipe Manuel Neto 1/20/2023 4:20:58 PM 8.4

**What is this crap??** I was quite curious to see this film given that the 1959 version is one of my favorite films, and a film that, much more than a piece of entertainment, is a historical document, a culturally relevant piece, worthy of preservation and memory. When I finished watching it, I was seriously thinking that this could only be a joke or a parody. The 1959 film will remain the definitive version, and if anyone wants something more up-to-date, I can recommend the 2010 TV miniseries. The film, directed by Timur Bekmambetov, is a piece of garbage. I won't waste my time talking about the script because almost everyone knows the story. What I can, however, say is that this film failed to honor the original material, nor its very noble predecessors in cinema, just for the almost vile way in which it chewed up and hid the original story. If the idea was to give us a new, more action-focused version, it failed to the fullest extent. Gave us a handful of nothing. Despite the weakness of the material received, Jack Huston deserves a positive note for the way he committed himself and for the way he ensures the leading role. He's not a good actor, but he's the best this movie has to offer. Tobby Kebbell wasn't able to do the same because the actor couldn't stop his character from becoming a soap opera villain. There is more than one character who does not deserve relevance, starting with Ester, and her father Simonides, who is quickly removed from the plot. This couldn't be more incorrect. Morgan Freeman is the most prestigious actor in this project, but that didn't stop him from being absolutely unhappy and from being apathetic and uninterested. Rodrigo Santoro, who gave life to Jesus, is a ham. Technically, the film has some points in its favor, namely the good settings, which even try, in some moments and situations, to emulate the 1959 film: I felt this obviously when I saw the Hur house, or the circus where the race took place. The circus even has the same fish! All the difference is in realism: the older film spared no effort in creating large-scale sets, and hiring thousands of extras, to grandiose and monumental effect. This film tried to do the same, using only CGI and the infamous green screen. If that worked in some moments, in others it gave the film the appearance of a video game. Even the chariot race, the highlight of the film, is so busy that we can't appreciate everything properly. It sounds like an excerpt from “Fast and Furious”. The cinematography is not happy, either, due to the absence of light and the haphazard way in which it seems to have been directed. The montage and editing is irregular, amateurish. The costumes are ugly, and even out of keeping with the period, most notably Freeman's dreadlocks. The soundtrack is forgettable.