Ben-Hur

Synopsis: A Jewish prince, Judah Ben-Hur (Jack Huston), is sentenced to be a galley slave after his adopted brother Messala Severus (Toby Kebbell) an officer in the Roman army occupying Jerusalem, delivers him and his family to the invaders. Years later Ben-Hur returns to wreak vengeance on the swine.

There have been two big screen adaptations of Lew Wallace's 1880 novel, “Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ”, the first one long forgotten from the silent era, the second being, of course, William Wyler’s iconic 1959 version with Charlton Heston as Ben-Hur. Timur Bekmambetov’s remake represents no threat to that film's standing  In fact within a couple of months it will be forgotten by everyone except the studio suits who green-lit it, effective kissing goodbye to the best part of $US100m. Not that they have anyone but themselves to blame.  

The 1959 version cost $US15m, in its day the most expensive movie ever made but despite winning 11 Academy Awards including Best Picture it didn’t make a profit for MGM (although it did in the long run thanks to home theatre).  But that was when spectacle, exotic cultures and the Christian faith meant something to cinema-goers.  Did anyone ask where the audience was to justify this remake?  And, even if that question was overlooked did anyone ask what they were trying to do with it? The limit of Timur Bekmambetov’s contribution seems to have been to make the story louder and more violent than the original but what it might have to say to modern audiences never seems to have been considered. Given America’s presence in the Middle East for the past two decades a film about the bloody hand of a super-power in the region would seem ripe for historical reflection. Instead we get some muddied old-fashioned adventure story whose political and religious dimensions are at best peripheral, at worst, jettisoned in a near-parodic happy ending that makes little-to-no sense. And, as if in a cursory appeal to the Bible-belt, every now-and-then ol' JC pops up to trot out some bromide about brotherly love before succumbing to the inevitable.

The casting is perplexing with two unconvincing male leads (in fact all the male roles are underwhelming) supported by equally unremarkable raven-locked women as their romantic interests. The only performer to stand out is a dread-locked Morgan Freeman (who also doubles as narrator) and this is for all the wrong reasons.

Wyler’s version has achieved legendary status for its edge-of-the-seat chariot race which was delivered in real time by actual stunt men with 15,000 extras providing the audience on a set constructed on 18 acres of backlot at Cinécitta Studios outside Rome. Bekmambetov’s version, needless to say, makes extensive use of CGI. Some of it is very unconvincing but worst of all he doesn’t generate any sense of to-the-death excitement that is promised in the build-up to it. Had he made this sequence work one might have forgiven him much of the film. But he doesn't.

Apparently there is a 3-D version available but frankly you’d be better off not seeing this film all and checking out Wyler's epic version. It’s not great in itself but it’s very good when compared to this and the chariot race is outstanding.

Want more about this film?

Want something different?