Timur Bekmambetov explained the film's adaptation in a interview with "Collider": "When we say 'original "Ben-Hur",' we have to be very concrete about which original version we are talking about. There were two big-screen versions made, in 1925 [Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925)] and 1959 [Ben-Hur (1959)]. These are the two most famous ones. There was also a Broadway stage version at the beginning of the 20th century. There have been a lot of television versions. The Ben-Hur story reminds me of 'Romeo and Juliet', 'Hamlet' and any story written by [Anton Chekhov]. It is timeless, so every new generation wants to go back to it in order to adapt it for the new world. The screen version made in 1959 runs for four hours, and there [are] only a small number of people who can actually stay through the whole movie. It is about people different from us. And it's normal, because people used to be different. The audience was different, too, as well as the cinema language the film was made in. The 1959 movie was about revenge, not about forgiveness. For me that was the main problem, as I think that the novel is mainly about forgiveness, about the fact that a human being learned how to forgive. I got so excited about the project when I read John Ridley's script. I understood that John's vision of the story has so much light to it, and that he shares the same thoughts about certain morals as I do. We talked with him about our modern world, which actually reminds me very much of a huge Roman Empire. In the Roman Empire the most important values were pride, rivalry, power, strength, the dictatorship of power and self-love. This kind of world does not have any prospects today. Humanity has to learn how to love and forgive. This would be our only solution." See more »
The opening sets the date as "33 A.D.", but the grammatically correct way to date years after the birth of Jesus is A.D. 33 ("Anno Domini 33"). Only B.C., or the more contemporary BCE, are listed after the year. See more »
How many Romans do you even know? Have you ever had a conversation with a single one in your life? Don't spit your hate for all when you don't even know one.
See more »
The name of the Turkish actor, Haluk Bilginer, is mistyped as Haluk Biligner in the end credits. See more »
I watched the original Ben-Hur and liked it very much, this time I was very excited going to the theater hoping for at least a 7 stars movie. I ended up leaving with disbelief why there is such a lame move in every aspect of it except the clothing and beautiful scenes. In short, they put Morgan Freeman in cameo appearance to lure moviegoer, he just appears very briefly. The story may be good for reading but the acting is very poor. Remember how officers and generals in Roman Legionnaire look? They are mostly glorified and be surrounded by thousands of troops in full battle (beautiful) gears. In this movie we only see a few officers and they are mostly by themselves in every scenes arguing, fighting, escorting prisoners to Rome, no more than 5 Roman soldiers around wherever the officers go, to the point that they are beaten, ridiculed, wounded, or killed easily. The most ridiculous part, to me, is those no-skilled peasant-turned-fighters were able to fight off or killed the fiercest gladiators who side with the Romans. Lastly, the story put lots of people (suddenly) to appear at the perfect time, perfect location, with fighting skill, or luck, to fight the Romans, and won; The whole movie is just like that.
No offense here but I don't know why other viewers put this movie more than 3 stars? To me, if you give movies like "Gladiators", "300" 100 points, this one barely makes 10 points.
73 of 113 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this