I wasn’t aware that there was a remake until a couple of days before this thread. I had never seen the 50’s version other than parts of the chariot scene and was aware that it was a huge mega-epic. I had no idea that any of the versions had a Christian message until I read this thread. Yeah, the remake was a terrible idea.
Yes I saw it. In fact I actually saw it twice this past weekend! However my only reason for seeing it is that I am a huge fan of Jack Huston and would see him in anything. If he were not in it, I would have zero interest. And he is great btw! The movie itself however… It’s not as terrible as the reviews make it seem, however there is nothing at all special about it and it really has no reason to even exist. I know they said it was another interpretation of Lew Wallace’s novel rather than a straight remake of the 1959 film, but it sure seemed to hew pretty close to the Heston version… Having never read the novel, I can’t tell you what if anything was different.
No, there is no pop music or songs in the film, it’s a score by Marco Beltrami.
The chariot race is actually mostly all practical effects with CGI only added in scenes where people or horses are injured. The scenes you see of Jack Huston or Toby Kebbel racing a chariot being pulled by four horses is actually the actors racing those chariots! I believe they said it took three months just to film the chariot race. But, impressive as that may be, that just goes back to why does the film exist in the first place? The 1959 version also actually filmed the chariot race scenes for real, so it’s not like anything different or new was added in this version… And what’s even worse is that in this age of everything being CGI, most moviegoers will assume the chariot race is all CGI anyway.
Yup. The film was originally scheduled to be released mid-February, it was then delayed until mid-August. In between those months there was very little publicity or trailers. I only started to really see ads for it on TV about one week before it opened, mainly during NBC Olympic coverage.
Yes. Jesus is basically the 3rd lead here. Unlike in the 1959 version, where you never actually see his face, here he’s very prominent with many scenes that don’t even involve Ben-Hur.
When I saw it was produced by Mark Burnett and Roma Downey, that’s when I realized the excuse for making it was that they wanted to create a Christian movie that they hoped would appeal to moviegoers looking for an action film.
Well the novel is subtitled “A Tale of the Christ.”
Excellent post. When I read the OP, I immediately thought “why is this being called a remake?” and was going to post something about that, but Hermione said it much better than I could have.
When The Alamo was released in 2004, I remember a friend dismissing it as a “cheesy remake” of the “iconic” John Wayne film. So apparently it’s not just one film per book that’s allowed—it’s one film per historical event, too!
This new Ben-Hur may indeed be a lousy movie, and it’s quite likely that the producers misjudged the potential audience for it. But it’s not an intrinsically bad film just because the novel has been filmed before.
I’m Christian, and most of those “Christian” movies are really insulting to believers and non-believers alike. They remind me of a quote from a pastor who was profiled in our local newspaper who talked about watching TBN while high 
, and not high, when he was in college and thinking, “I was raised in the church and I have never known people this weird.”
Many years ago, I was at a party (OK, I’ll admit it, a Mensa meeting ) and we gave “North By Northwest” the MST3K treatment.
:eek:
You had to be there. It was bizarre!
That didn’t surprise me. We all know how it ends.
The book “Deep Down Dark” was a big best-seller, but the first book about it, “33 Men”, was much, much better.
And how much do you suppose the remake is going to pull in, come 2035?
^^^ This. ^^^
Also, now do The BFG.
Nah, they should have him reprise his original performance…
I’m a huge movie/pop culture fan. I write reviews for my local paper. I read Entertainment Weekly religiously and follow lots of websites more or less casually.
I’ve known for at least a year that this movie was being made.
I had no idea it had been released already until I saw this thread.
Seems to me the distributor is dumping it and washing their hands of it.
What seems weird is that as recently as 2010 there was a post-Gladiator attempt at a TV miniseries/TV film version. Big topical casting: Hugh Bonneville.
Pretty much sank without a trace. Which wasn’t a warning?
Why wait for a remake? That movie is perfectly open for a sequel.
One reviewer recounted that there was actually a bit of dialog that went: “Are you having fun yet?” That’s enough to keep me away from a remake of a movie that won 11 Oscars.
It’s enough to remind me of another sword-and-sandal movie that won Best Picture, and simultaneously lose out on that comparison likewise.
Also, this film had the same casting issues of a bunch of other movies that have fallen flat lately. They take stories set in the middle east/north Africa/Asia/South America, or with major characters from those areas, and cast almost all the speaking roles with white people. Exodus had that issue, Prince of Persia had that issue, Gods of Egypt had that issue to hell and back, Avatar: The Last Airbender had it, Ghost in the Shell and Dr. Strange are already taking crap for it, The Lone Ranger featuring Johnny Dep (!!!) as Tonto had it in spades, Aloha and Stonewall both got bad notes for it…
The directors and studios have got to realize that their audiences are aware that whitewashing is not OK, and that there are a ton of talented non-white actors out there who may not be stars yet but might be after that movie.
Ben-Hur bombed because it was a CGI remake of a 1959 film staring Charlton Heston that won 11 Academy Awards and was widely regarded as one of the greatest spectacles in filmmaking of it’s time.
Sword and sandal films don’t have to bomb. 300, Troy and Gladiator all did over $450 million at the box office. And Gladiator won like five Oscars.
I think the problem with a lot of the crappier films is that they get these forgettable emo actors in front of CGI backdrops. Sure 300 was all CGI, but those guys got freakin jacked for their roles. Brad Pitt was bad ass as Achilles. And Russell Crowe won an Oscar for Ass Kicking. One review I read contrasted the original saying that the chariot race in the Heston version looked like the invention of speed.
Are you saying they should be thrown to the lions?
I believe that was the idea-- a new adaptation of the book, rather than a remake of the classic movie.
But the book sucks!
What’s seldom recognized is that North by Northwest is actually kind of a crappy movie. Like many (if not all) Hitchcock flicks, it’s pretty silly when you start deconstructing it.
The best version of Ben-Hur ever was the one on the Easter edition of SCTV, S01E13 … which has, unfortunately, been removed from YouTube. 