Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Anna Jane It was a great movie, it was easy to follow with the events! I love the way they showed us how it all began, how he thought that he had everything and lost it all but then found so much more. When I understood that the man was Jesus I got goosebumps, it was a very smart way to show us all the historic events of that time. I have to say my sister and me were left teary-eyed with the ending of Jesus, it was very emotional and respectfully done. After all, love found a way to win...again!

Neil Welch 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.

TheLittleSongbird To me, and quite a number of others, the definitive 'Ben-Hur' version (also the best known) will always be the one from 1959 starring Charlton Heston and directed by William Wyler, a film that epitomises the term epic in every sense and in many ways iconic. A very strong case can also be made for the 1925 silent version, a huge achievement in its day and awe-inspiring in its spectacle.Unfortunately, this cannot be said for this 2016 version of 'Ben-Hur', nowhere near in the same league as the other two, pretty much insulting to them and the source material, and a mess of a film in its own right. Judging it as a film on its own, a lot of it is disastrously executed and a few good things only just about salvages it from being bottom of the barrel. It's not one of the worst remakes like 'Psycho', 'The Wicker Man', 'Rollerball', 'Ghostbusters' and 'Stepford Wives' to name examples, but to me it's down there with the most pointless and one where one questions "what was the need".Its least bad assets are some nice scenery, the sea battle scene that delivers on the tension and excitement that is severely lacking elsewhere and Jack Huston. Huston may not be as imposing or as charismatic as Heston especially, but he cuts a dashing figure and brings a quiet dignity to the title role and at least tries to give some likability. Elsewhere, 'Ben-Hur' is a failure.Visually, only the scenery is halfway decent. It is however wasted by the film constantly being shot in a far too dark and murky way, chaotic cinematography and editing that looks as though it was done on a on-its-last-legs bacon slicer. The CGI is excessive, feels shoe-horned in and gives even more of an inept video game look. Even the costumes look cheap and very anachronistic to boot.Sea battle apart, the action is undone by clumsy and chaotic choreography/staging, director Timur Bermambetov (directing throughout in a lifeless fashion, highly suggestive that he was not right for the material and clearly had badly misinterpreted it) taking it too far with the brashness and grit and by such a cheap visual look. The chariot race, brilliantly done in the 1925 film and iconic in the 1959 one, is too murkily shot, too choppily edited and too brash to be remotely exciting.Was not expecting music on the same level as one of a kind Miklos Rozsa, but this aspect was not only uninspired and forgettable it completely jars with the period and like Marco Beltrami had forgotten what kind of film he was scoring for. It's not the only thing that fails to gel. Failing even more are the forced and heavy-handed religious and cultural elements and especially one of 2016's most cringe-worthy, embarrassingly out of place and pointless scenes in Jesus' epilogue.'Ben-Hur' is very poorly written, with lots of melodrama and awkwardness and no heart or intrigue. The story really struggles to find its own identity and brings forth few ideas of its own. The famous scenes incorporated are completely diminished generally in impact, thanks to the visual ineptitude, being far too brash and breakneck in pace and the over-emphasis on the gritty tone. There is nothing epic here, instead one isn't ever entirely sure whether to consider it a completely soulless biblical drama or a completely humourless parody of 'Life of Brian'.Regarding the cast, near-uniformly poor. Excepting Huston, who still isn't particularly great. Toby Kebbell fails to bring much threat or complexity to Messala, who is more stock than menacing or conflicted. The scenes between him and Huston are too soap-operatic to be believable. Simonides and Quintas are so mishandled in screen time (under-utilised) and development (one-dimensional) that the point of them being there is questioned. Faring worst are Rodrigo Santoro, trying too hard as Jesus in an interpretation so bizarre and out of kilter it was like he accidentally wandered into the wrong film, and the normally dependable Morgan Freeman looking like he wasn't even trying.Overall, a mess with a lot of elements executed disastrously. There is definitely far worse out there but this was near-incompetent stuff with a few small salvageable elements. 3/10 Bethany Cox

pegadodacruz As I watch the movie, I cannot detach myself from the 11 Oscars classic unfortunately. Yet I also am able to watch individually and what I can say is that this movie, for any movie lover will feel empty, vague, rushed... I still remember the 1959 version required at least 3 VHS tapes... 3 hour hours of film, worthwhile. This one cuts an hour, changes crucial points and makes no justice to the "original"...Again even alone this movie seems really rushed. Lacks emotion and dept. Jack Huston does a good job playing Ben-Hur though, but doesn't come close to Mr. Heston. Anyway just really one unnecessary remake.