In the Name of Ben Hur (2016) User Reviews

Not a paid reviewer, and this is Asylum again....

[joshhanke · 2/10 · 9 August 2016]

We have all learned by now (I hope) that anything touched by Asylum is garbage. So much garbage. I keep trying to give them a chance, but I keep being disappointed in a big way.

As usual, the acting is sub par, but in this case, that is the best part of the movie. Don't actors know by now, that if you let Asylum infect your life, that you will fail, and only ever be able to act in shitty B movies? That was me, being nice, calling it a B movie, by the way.

Bad soundtracks....really bad....coupled with bad choreography, bad wardrobe, bad hair....honestly, do they really think that some pretty white boy with a 90's boy-band haircut is really cutting it as a vigilante from that era, trying to remove the Romans? That's just lazy.

The production, casting, and direction crews are the worst the industry has to offer. Hands down.

Hot chick with a bow....check. Warrior woman.....check. Overacting main characters....check. Precisely nothing authentic.....check. Cringe inducing travesty....check.

Yep, it's Asylum all right.

Bland! Cheap! Boring! It's the Asylums Ben Hur! Yaaaay!!!

[freqeteq · 3/10 · 9 August 2016]

In The Name Of Ben Hur is directed by Mark Atkins. This straight to video movie is being released around the same time that the big budget remake of Ben Hur is being released in theaters. Thanks Asylum, you've done it again by churning out yet another cheap looking horrible blatant cash grab of a movie.

Most of you know what you're getting into with an Asylum movie, but for the sake of giving me something to do and for those of you who have never heard of Asylum before, then read on, I'll try to explain their latest offering and why you should never ever watch it.

Do not, I repeat do not go into this movie expecting a production value any higher than an episode of a very cheap TV show. The acting is a mixed bag, a couple of the actors are good but most of the younger main actors are simply terrible, and the guy that plays Ben Hur changes his accent a couple of times during the movie, which is quite funny in a distracting way. Anyway, onto the fight scenes, oh yeah I nearly forgot, there's a female Chinese assassin in this movie, gotta love historically accurate movies, anyway the fight scenes all pretty much consist of Romans with swords getting knocked out by either people punching them in the face once or Ben Hur hitting them with his staff once. Don't expect to see any blood in this movie except for the occasional bloody nose, even when someone gets stabbed with a dagger there is no blood, and when Ben Hur picks up an axe he ain't going to be using the sharp end to attack the guys with swords that are trying to kill him, not when he can use the handle to knock them out instead! What a guy! It saves them having to do blood effects! Yaaaay, cost cutting! In one scene our heroes free some slaves from the Romans and the 2 guards see their faces, but instead of killing them so there are no witnesses Ben Hur just one punch knocks them out with his magical fist and leaves them alive so they can identify him and his buddies later, makes absolutely no sense, which brings me on to the plot...

The overall story is adequate I guess, it's generic bland and forgettable but at least it's not overly insulting to the intelligence (not counting the horrible fight scenes), there are quite a few instances though of stupid people doing stupid things that will leave you shouting at your TV while wishing you were were watching the new Ghostbusters or an infomercial instead. Not once while watching this movie did I care about the characters or feel immersed in the world and that is because the writing of these characters was pretty poor, take a minute to imagine every stereotype of character that you'd expect to see in a movie of this time period and they'll be in this movie, just nowhere near as interesting as the ones that you imagined in your head are.

In the end I hated this movie, I hated it because of what it is, a cheap cash grab. Not one person on this movie from the director to the person who made sure that all the clothing looked like it was straight off the rack gave a damn about this movie, seriously, all the clothing from the Roman armor to peasant clothing looked brand new, no stains no tarnish, brand new. There was no passion involved in making this movie, and it shows.

I gave it 3 stars, it's not enjoyable enough to be entertaining or bad enough to be funny, it's just a forgettable souless movie that you should only watch if you want to fall asleep and don't have any Ambien in the medicine cabinet.

Wat a disappointment!

[stevehoyland · 2/10 · 11 August 2016]

There I was, expecting a remake of the original,or thereabouts.Okay so I wasn't expecting the huge Cinematic blockbuster that was the original, but come on! Was this meant to be tongue-In-cheek? No,but It certainly seems that way. My first worries began when I discovered that the filming locations were In Wales. Now, parts of Wales are spectacularly beautiful, but Ben-Hur and the Welsh valleys Just don't gel, It certainly wouldn't have been at the top of my list of "suitable locations", but these are only my opinions of course - each to his or her own, as they say. That said, the 19th century dry-stone walls built by Welsh farmers do seem a little out of place. The running time of 1.5 hours, less than half the length of the original, didn't bode well. The costumes. Too clean and bright and suitable only at a fancy dress party. Cleanliness, obvious make up, strategically-placed "dirt" on faces, trimmed facial-hair and perfectly manicured nails add to what comes across more like an episode of a kids tea-time drama than an epic-remake. Where are the advances In Cinematic skills and technology which allow film-makers to create realism like never before? Erm...absent. As for the acting, mediocre across the board Is quiet a generous statement. For those who've never seen the 1959 epic and view this entirely on Its own merit, perhaps who also have little or no Interest In historical accuracy (and there's nothing wrong In that), or who view the whole and have no concern for the parts which make up that whole, then this Movie may Just entertain you a little, or maybe even more so. Despite my negativity, I do however think that the younger element will like It (and no-doubt find the original rather overstretched and boring) as It does have Its share of action and drama. But for those over 21 I'd have to say "Your time could be much better spent"!

Sunday matinée film for kids

[Mbakkel2 · 5/10 · 29 August 2016]

I feel that this film is more "Ivanhoe" than a biblical epic. The Romans are mostly depicted as arrogant and selfish. As a film for a mature audience I think this film leaves much to be desired. It is more like an adventure film. Children, however, may therefore find it both exciting and thrilling. The characters are either good or bad, only a few shades of gray, which is important for a kiddie audience.

The film was reminiscent of a low-budget TV film.

The plot of a young warrior learning the trade from an older warrior has been borrowed from lots of earlier films. The premise that a warrior assembles an uneven bunch of amateur fighters to defeat a superior enemy has also been shown in films many times in the past.

Ben, do not take her name in vein

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 11 September 2016]

We might call In the name of Ben-Hur, Judah Ben-Hur the later years and since he was doing his thing back in Judea around the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, he's had an interesting life. In the years of Nero's reign time and circumstance have brought him to Lusitania which we now call Portugal. One day Ben-Hur retired and wandering saves the life of young Jonno Davies who is protecting his sister from the depravities of some legionnaires.

But that's for openers. The governor has hit upon a brilliant scheme to keep Nero happy send him some women from the province. Had it been Caligula they were trying to please it would have been young twinks. Of course the locals including Davies aren't real happy about this.

In fact Davies importunes Adrian Bouchet playing the middle aged Ben-Hur to train his posse as gladiators, the better to fight the Romans. Therein lies the tale.

Although there are references to the two classic films and Lew Wallace's novel including one big one in the end which if you haven't seen either the film or read the novel you won't understand the climax, there's one big glaring error. Judah Ben-Hur was NOT a gladiator in the original story, he made his bones as a chariot racer as we well know. He's asked to train the kids in gladiatorial combat which wasn't his thing.

Bouchet, Davies, and the rest look like folks whose paychecks have cleared knowing they're in a scavenger of a movie made to take advantage of a third remake of Ben-Hur coming out.

Lew Wallace, Charlton Heston, and Ramon Novarro would not be pleased.

Worse fight scenes I've seen in my life

[rsergioplay · 1/10 · 13 September 2021]

The movie started interesting at first then about 20 mins into it there's the fight scene with the hired gladiators and Ben Hur which is so bad I had to turn it off, what a joke...

Ben Who?

[nicholls_les · 1/10 · 13 September 2016]

One of the worst movies i have ever seen. Well not even sure you can call it a movie it is so bad. Everything about this film is bad. The story is unbelievable, to think a few untrained farmers could defeat trained Roman soldiers and ex-Gladiators is ridiculous. None of the characters looked like they could fight their way out of a paper bag. Could the Romans really only muster half a dozen soldiers in badly fitted Armour, that were so easily defeated by a man with a staff?

The direction is awful and the costumes a joke, (Peter Ormond looked like he was in badly fitted fancy dress.) Jonno Davies ran around like a little boy so out of his depth and really badly cast. It is hard to find any good acting in this movie, but Alan Calton stood out as better than the film itself.

I watched it to the end in the hope that it might get better but it gets worse the more it progresses to the final silly ending.

At times I thought maybe this was a spoof comedy, but on reading the DVD cover discovered it was suppose to be an action film.

In the name of awfulness

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 25 May 2018]

Have made no secret in the past of intensely disliking, and even outright hating a lot, a vast majority of The Asylum's (near-universally maligned for good reason) output, though there is curiosity as to whether they are capable of making something good and compulsive about their output's badness. Admittedly, The Asylum do have a small group of watchable films and the occasional (big emphasis on that word) above average one, unfortunately outweighed by the lacklustre at best and often dreadful films they churn out.

Did not watch 'In the Name of Ben-Hur' with high expectations. It looked horrid and some of it sounded ridiculous. Saw it however out of curiosity, as part of my low-budget film quest (yes, have got a good deal of quests going on, some of them completest ones) and especially because the story of Ben-Hur has lent itself well to film.

A story that deserved an infinitely better film than 'In the Name of Ben-Hur'. It really does Ben-Hur an injustice and manages to be even worse than it looked and even more of a mess than indicated in the premise. That it is not a waste of a good concept film made me less annoyed than some other films seen recently. My annoyance though is aimed at how poorly done in every single way 'In the Name of Ben-Hur' is. 2016's 'Ben-Hur' was not a good film at all but one appreciates that film a little more when watching the amateur hour execution seen here.

Nothing good going on here. The acting lacks any kind of passion or emotion, even skill or direction. No exceptions here, Jonno Davies especially is completely out of his depth.

'In the Name of Ben-Hur's' uncharismatic, wimpy and annoying character writing and writing that is far too excessively ridiculous to be guilty pleasure cheese and too awkward and dull to be tongue in cheek works against them. As well as non-existent direction.

Direction that fails to convey any urgency, tension, fun, suspense or emotion in the numerous scenes that need them. The action-oriented scenes are the complete anti-thesis of exciting, are poorly filmed and looks so awkward in the choreography. The whole story is just lifeless, completely fails to make any sense at all and on the wrong side of daft that it's insultingly ridiculous. Nothing suspenseful or fun here.

Visually, 'In the Name of Ben-Hur' looks cheap as sin, with an overuse of truly risible special effects that never gels with the setting or looks real, dizzying camera work and editing and shoe-string budget production and costume design. The music is ill-fitting and not appealing on the ear. Alan Calton, the only actor who tries, is the least bad thing about the film.

In conclusion, really bad. 2/10 Bethany Cox

This is a waste of your time, do anything else!

[asiafarer · 1/10 · 27 August 2016]

I was thinking of "Ben Hur" when I see this announced. I was really surprised when the movie started. Poor acting. Really cheap set. Anything you could ask for, was not there! I then read the reviews on the net. Started googling Asylum. Next time I see Asylum is mentioned with a new movie, I will skip it. You should too! Go out sniff fresh air, sit down and consider suicide: anything is a better use of your time than spending it watching this movie! And the way Asylum is usurping the public mind by making movies that attracts attention through using names and posters resembling known movies and blockbusters, is a shitty procedure really showing what garbage the whole production company Asylum is!

If you are ready to die, get in.

[nogodnomasters · 3/10 · 24 October 2017]

More like Ben Hur II, the bad sequel. The Romans have a group of soldiers in Lusitania and irritate the locals. Some kid who looks like a punk Malcolm in Middle (Jonno Davies) asks Ben Hur (Adrian Bouchet) to help train them against the Romans, which he does in about 30 minutes using wooden swords. They are now set to go up against a group of former gladiator mercenaries which included a hot Asian chick with a Russian accent. The acting and script left something to be desired. umm...there was a chariot. The set, costumes, grooming, and period materials was not researched. The kids might like it.

Guide: No swearing, sex, or nudity.

Well-intentioned, ambitious - lack of budget holds it back

[vbanerjee · 8/10 · 3 November 2016]

Easy viewing. A good film to have on when you want to enjoy and switch off from heavier daily troubles. Although not perfect, worth supporting from an all British cast, production value perspective.

It's hardly the budget of a Gladiator or a Kingdom of Heaven. But it aims to show an interesting array of characters and in some instances the uniqueness of an all British cast and a new Ben Hur story comes through. I thought Lucia plays a good role as the sister of the hero. Cassius is also an interesting character, albeit a little expected.

The idea of a washed up, reclusive Ben-Hur is an interesting concept and is an ambitious concept to take on. As mentioned, it is a well-intentioned different take on an existing story. It's definitely worth knowing when going into this film to manage expectations.

The film is inevitably held back by lack of budget but it does aim to deliver a good show, and the final action sequence along the beach definitely delivers some a beautiful backdrop to the final climax. I thought the music was good -- probably the part most reminiscent of a larger movie

It's a film you should go into with expectations clear -- definitely a B movies, with a small budget and is good for a Sunday afternoon viewing. worth keeping an open mind, there are some nuggets in there.

a unnecessary remake

[cdcrb · 6/10 · 30 August 2016]

I didn't see charlton heston and the chariot race, but I understand it was very good. as I watched this movie, I kept thinking there is something missing. the story is interesting, the acting isn't bad, it moves along all right, but it just doesn't work. there's no excitement, no one shows any real emotion for what ever their ideals are. it's flat. and the chariot race, which I assume is the whole reason for the remake, is boring. it's not like you don't know who's gonna win; I didn't care. I notice a 50+ score of 1. that has to be discounted. this site isn't a forum for personal vendetta's, what ever they are. it's not that bad, it's just not very good.

The author deserves more than this...

[teobrehuescu · 1/10 · 16 September 2016]

-> I read the book "Ben-Hur" and it was an awesome experience. I love the style of Lew Wallace and the way he introduce myself in the atmosphere at that time. -> My intention was to see a film based on this book, but "In the Name of Ben Hur" present another story and feelings. The story line is simple and predictable, the "glimpse" from the faces of the actors are not the perfect one, the fight seems to be a fake one. -> My advice: read the book, make your own movie in your head because this one is a waste of time. You also could try the movie "Ben Hur"(2016), it seems to be more qualitative than this. It is on my watchlist.

Have an awesome day! XOXO

What a waist of my Time

[paulvermeer · 2/10 · 28 August 2016]

It is that I want to save 1 star for later but this is a good candidate. what is worse I ask my self, the acting the lower then low scenery I can not choose. Where the money for this film went. Not in the Cast not in the casting not in the pure film quality and it goes on and on even the fake blood looks fake. I can not think of any reason why this film was made with this name it is an insult to the real Ben Hur movie with John Charles Carter aka Charlton Heston. And then for last really the beginning looks very bad and it gets worse and worse, bad acting by nobody's. So do not spent any time on this movie. Just a tip: So many others movies to enjoy even in this genre, like The Eagle or similar movies.

Decent movie - good action and sweeping landscapes

[anamxkhan · 8/10 · 31 October 2016]

I enjoyed watching this movie. It's a decent option for when you need to switch off. It is easy to watch and nice scenic shots.

It's not a remake of the original 'In the name of Ben-Hur'. It's more a continuation of the story.

It's a story worth telling and this film takes a different approach than the original at telling it. It is a budget movie so bear that in mind when watching it. The production quality obviously cannot be compared to the big budget version, but is good for a low budget film.

Lucia (played by Lara Heller) and Cassius (played by Michael Bott) were well-delivered characters.

Keep an open mind

[mammoth-24001 · 7/10 · 27 September 2016]

With the risible Hollywood remake of BEN HUR stinking up cinemas recently, it's good to keep an open mind and look at this movie in context. Made for a fraction of the cost of the Jack Huston - Morgan Freeman version, there's a lot to like here.

Lara Heller's Lucia and Alan Carlton's Cyprian stood out for me and I would be interested in searching out other films they've been in.

Not aware of Asylum's previous titles, which I notice a lot of the other reviews criticize. Maybe bad experiences in the past has meant other viewers have gone in expecting bad things and looking for them. I don't know. I, for one, enjoy this period in film.

Great engaging movie

[gitaassefi · 10/10 · 24 October 2016]

I enjoyed watching Ben Hur.It was a very nice action drama. I loved the bravery and the suspense in the movie. I know that it is not based on a real story but as I was watching it, I felt as if it was based on a true story. I think this movie brought a mirror to present and past. We could find many similarities between the leaders of that time and the ones now. It created a lot of excitement as the movie continued in its sequence. All the actors were so powerful in their acting. The landscape which was chosen for the movie was mesmerizing and very suitable for the setting. .I hope ı can watch more of such movies in the future. Gita

"If one could kill with mirth you would be a champion"

[hwg1957-102-265704 · 6/10 · 4 January 2021]

Judah Ben-Hur ends up in Lusitania, older and wiser, and against his initial reluctance aids a band of locals in their struggle against the occupying Romans. I must confess to enjoying this low budget film. The fight scenes were varied in quality and the look of the uniform and sets were too clean but the acting was adequate and some of the dialogue, particularly in the first half, was good. Adrian Bouchet makes a solid Hur. You can believe in his character. I also liked the odd assortment of mercenaries that were hired, Their introduction scene was well staged. The Welsh locations may not have been authentic but they look great, particularly in the chariot chase on the beach.

Another Ben-Hur also came out in 2016 with an estimated budget of $100 million . That one was worse than this one. Go figure.

A mock-buster hit

[ian-800-890059 · 8/10 · 3 August 2016]

For a small budget movie 'In The Name Of Ben Hur' is very good. There's no escaping that there are holes in the plot and the quality of production is somewhat inconsistent but there are several strong acting performances. The immense (literally) Adrian Boucher as Ben Hur, Jonno Davies as the young vigilante Adrian and Michael Bott as Cassium are certainly worth a mention. Alan Calton, Marcello Walton and Peter Ormond provide good support too. The filming locations are stunning, with the mountains of Snowdonia substituting for what is now modern-day Portugal and horsemanship is excellent throughout. Some very good fight scenes help move the action along and the story is easy to follow. Another 'mock-buster' hit for Asylum. A good yarn well worth watching.