Ben-Hur

Watch: Ben-Hur

PG-13

8/19/20162h 5m

Theatrical Release (US)

~ Brother against brother. Slave against empire. ~

Overview:

A falsely accused nobleman survives years of slavery to take vengeance on his best friend who betrayed him.

Director:

Timur Bekmambetov

Status:

Released

Language:

English

Buget:

$100,000,000.00

Revenue:

$94,061,311.00

Key words:

based on novel or book
christianity
chariot race
ancient rome
remake
betrayal
1st century
jesus christ
vengeance

Cast

Jack Huston

~ as ~

Judah Ben-Hur

Pilou Asbæk

~ as ~

Pontius Pilate

Rodrigo Santoro

~ as ~

Jésus Christ

Morgan Freeman

~ as ~

Sheik Ilderim

Ayelet Zurer

~ as ~

Naomi Ben-Hur

Toby Kebbell

~ as ~

Messala Severus

Nazanin Boniadi

~ as ~

Esther

Sofia Black-D'Elia

~ as ~

Tirzah Ben-Hur

Marwan Kenzari

~ as ~

Druses

Moisés Arias

~ as ~

Gestas

View full cast & crew

Reviews (4)

TopKek
Written 8 year(s) ago
~~
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.
Reno
Written 8 year(s) ago
5
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
Written 4 year(s) ago
2
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
Written 2 year(s) ago
1
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.