A deeply impressive movie, full of amazingly epic scenes, hampered by a largely plodding pace, an over-awed religiosity, and a muddied motivation for its primary character. Worth seeing — once.
Full review: http://letterboxd.com/three_star_dave/film/ben-hur-1959/
3.5 stars out of 5
I'm now much more curious to see the new film, to see what they do with the material. Will it be all action oriented? Will they integrate the religious message without rendering it in such an overblown fashion? Will CGI overwhelm all the amazing practical effects of this rendition? Will it win "Best Picture"? We'll see.
126 view(s)
The chariot race is the only part worth watching.
Wish fakewood would stop making great films with a quote modern twist.. If they are out of ideas just ask for help and ideas
I thought the film would have been stronger if they stopped right after the chariot race. Post-race there's no great action scenes and the plot took a suddenly religious turn. Plus how the film solved the mother's and sister's leprosy was a total deus ex machina.
+Stan Pedzick It's certainly the best part to watch. The galley scene is pretty nicely done (albeit with the problems of using miniatures for naval battles, esp. with flaming catapult ammo).
+MARY K Bear in mind that the 1959 version was the third movie adaptation of the original novel. At what point does the argument that Hollywood is "out of ideas" actually kick in — after the first movie?
I think better questions are, does a particular remake actually bring something new and worthwhile to justify its existence while retaining enough connection with the original to use the name? And why are people unwilling to watch the classics such that Hollywood feels it can make money off of remakes?
+Melissa Walsh If you were just making a movie about vengeance, then, yes, after Messala dies, the movie is over. But the theme from the beginning seems to be that vengeance is not enough, which is worthwhile. The problem isn't that the story has nowhere to go, it's that it goes there very heavy-handedly and in sort of a muddle, and with an odd and abrupt conclusion.
(The turn to religion is also not "sudden" — we spend the fist 10 minutes of the film focused on the Birth of Christ, and Judah has a meaningful encounter with Jesus earlier on in the movie.)
+Dave Hill.. 1959 version is better then the first on however the one out now is complete bs with a mediocre acting and Chariot racing scene and Charlton Heston and the 1959 crew did a greater version of staying true to the story without watering it down with bs and idoits who cant act
+MARY K Sorry to hear the new one is such a flop. I think, though, the problem is not doing remakes, but doing remakes that are not good movies.
I'll add the new remake to the "catch it on a long plane flight" list.
Well, due to a glitch in coding (Flixster and Movies.Google both list one auditorium at the Landmark Arvada as showing the original), I just got home from seeing the new one — I thought it might be interesting to see the original on a big screen if it were indeed being offered. I know from my experience with such restoration exhibitions as The Sound of Music, Lawrence of Arabia, My Fair Lady and others that the experience of films prepared for such large format presentation utterly changes when seen that way from that of seeing them on a television.
:::Potential Spoilers Below:::
If you want to term miraculous healing as deus ex machina, then the biblical stories the novel is something of a fan fiction of are heavy in machina and yes, miraculous healing is depicted in the 2016 version as well. That just comes with the territory when drawing from the source material.
There is much less heavy handed religiosity here, though. The religious content is here, but but not handled with the "reverence" that slows the original (OK, 1959 — I know of the previous versions but don't recall ever having seen them) to a crawl at times. If one doesn't "get" that, then the scene near the end where Judah witnesses the crucifixion and experiences a revelation concerning vengeance could seem plodding, but from my perspective they breezed by it pretty quickly.
I'll admit I've not read the Wallace novel so don't know if the death of Messala is depicted in the 1959 version accurately or not, but the filmmakers take a completely different tack in 2016. It appears Messala has perished in the chariot crash, but then after the crucifixion Judah goes to find him in the Roman garrison (which in and of itself seemed odd — a Jew going unescorted deep into the occupation force's administrative area). Messala is there, on a gurney, with his leg amputated. He has a spittle enhanced diatribe against Judah, blaming him for all that has transpired, and draws his gladius hispaniensis in definance. Judah then has a short speech denouncing further vengeance and reminding Messala of childhood events when Messala carried Judah home after having been injured and says it is now time for them to return to being brothers so that Judah can carry Messala. Loving brotherly embrace ensues and a Morgan Freeman voice-over points out many miraculous healings took place "that day." Perhaps the scene most at odds with the 1959 depiction.
More intrusive than any particular CGI was the occasional Freeman voice-overs, IMO. While I saw it "flat," the chariot race was clearly meant to be experienced in 3D. As such, much of the "camera work" was exaggerated in ways some might find more intrusive than I. But, as in the original, it is the most exhilarating sequence in the movie.
One sequence I felt did draw too much attention to the amount of CGI involved in the production was not there but in a dissolve between two scenes: Judah looks up into the sky (if I recall, after an early scene encounter with Jesus) and the camera then switches POV to the clouds he is probably seeing. The clouds are depicted as moving, so not a static sky and yet the bright blue sunlit firmament behind the clouds transforms into a starlit night sky to establish a time setting for the next scene; the clouds continuing to move smoothly through the dissolve to connect the scenes. it might have been meant with a wink and a nod, but it utterly threw me out of any engagement I had at that point.
I seriously doubt we'll be hearing about it come Oscar time.
+The Bruce, Mile High Thanks for the update. Like I said, I'll put it on the "long plane flight" list — which won't do it justice for its graphics, but should get the story by and large.