Ben-Hur, the 1959 Charlton Heston classic, of the same name, which won 11 Oscars, is getting a remake, or rather re-adaptation of the novel Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ. The original Ben-Hur is a historical epic that spans more than three hours and is one of the best film epics of all-time. If you are a cinefile, you should watch the original. On the other hand, this new Ben-Hur looks like a typical Roman era revenge tale. The CGI is subpar, the set design appears adequate, and the casting is fine I suppose. If this wasn't titled Ben-Hur, there would be nothing really to say about the film. But this is a remake of a classic, so it is impossible not to compare. It just seems unnecessary and pointless and all around meh. What do you think? Please comment below and check back soon for more movie reviews!
If you want to contact us or have any questions please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.
As has been pointed out to me, the Charlton Heston version of Ben-Hur is a remake of a silent film (which I already knew). That being said, we don't need to remake a film that is already among the greatest of all time.
ReplyDeleteThere was a 2000 miniseries version that was pretty bad (which is referenced in your second image), and this remake looks no better (even if it has Morgan Freeman).
Oh yeah, I was just looking at William Wyler's filmography the other day and completely forgot that he remade his own film! But I definitely agree. We don't need a remake of a film like Ben-Hur.
DeleteAh, OK, I did not realize that's where the poster was from. I probably should have read the print on it. But I agree, the movie doesn't look so good.
-James
*winces* considering the 1959 film is in my top ten favorite films of all time, I'm not thrilled to see one of my favorite stories being redone in such a...subpar looking manner? I don't know how to describe it, but that did not make me happy. Lol. So I gotta agree with you! XD
ReplyDeleteYeah, this isn't looking so good. XD
Delete-James
It looks very soapy. Are they intending to have Messala literally be Judah's brother? Because that's just cheap and messes up the whole "must Jews and Gentiles be at war?" theme that the book has going on. Booo.
ReplyDelete