Tombstone Mountain Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Was the original any good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted March 19, 2016 Share Posted March 19, 2016 Was the original any good? Yes! Even if you are not 100% in love with the cast or story (like me), the film has a tremendous amount of greatness going for it. Just solely based on the score, set designs, action sequences, special effects and cinematography, it is one of the most entertaining movies you will ever see! I disliked it for years, as personally I don't enjoy Charlton Heston in pretty much anything (he makes trees look like ballet dancers, he is that wooden (yeah ok guys you can bore we with your self-defense, even the director felt the same way)), but when I got around to seeing it last year with an open mind...I was floored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
workingcinderellaman Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I am quite skeptical about this remake. It had better be really, really GOOD.......but my cynicism tells me that it will focus more on the action than on the story. The 1959 film was flawless, IMO. It's gonna be hard to match! Yep, my thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wil1972 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) I am quite skeptical about this remake. It had better be really, really GOOD.......but my cynicism tells me that it will focus more on the action than on the story. The 1959 film was flawless, IMO. It's gonna be hard to match! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N983kHgvjQQ I always have mixed feelings about seeing classics such as this remade. Just watched the '59 film this past weekend. Just a great film. I agree it will be hard to match. Edited March 30, 2016 by Wil1972 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I'm going to ask my husband to get the dvd from the library. If they had King of Kings, they'll be sure to have Ben-Hur. I haven't watched the movie since either the late eighties or the very early nineties, but up to that time, without any exaggeration, I must have seen the movie at least thirty or more times since 1960. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I am not sure if I said this already but here is my issue: The filmmakers have lied to try and promote the value of this film. The director said this is closer to the book than the original. How can this be when Ben Hur and Messala are now portrayed as brothers? I have the book. I know it well. This is not the original story. They also imply now, according to the director, that Massalla isn't the bad guy. They are simply "brothers that went their separate ways". There we go. They soften the edges by giving the villain some "humanity". It makes me sick. This is not a story that needed a revisionist update. The 1959 film is a timeless masterpiece, and a milestone in filmmaking history. It honestly angers me as well that they chose a cast of pretty boy actors. Where is the grit? Where is the masculinity? With a now softer "villian" I half expect a thirty minute interval of hair braiding and pedicures. I rarely say this. But I want this film to bomb. I want it to do really badly and give Hollywood the message that these types of films are not wanted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I am not sure if I said this already but here is my issue: The filmmakers have lied to try and promote the value of this film. The director said this is closer to the book than the original. How can this be when Ben Hur and Messala are now portrayed as brothers? I have the book. I know it well. This is not the original story. They also imply now, according to the director, that Massalla isn't the bad guy. They are simply "brothers that went their separate ways". There we go. They soften the edges by giving the villain some "humanity". It makes me sick. This is not a story that needed a revisionist update. The 1959 film is a timeless masterpiece, and a milestone in filmmaking history. It honestly angers me as well that they chose a cast of pretty boy actors. Where is the grit? Where is the masculinity? With a now softer "villian" I half expect a thirty minute interval of hair braiding and pedicures. I rarely say this. But I want this film to bomb. I want it to do really badly and give Hollywood the message that these types of films are not wanted. What it sounds like they've done is that they've made the film "politically correct" now. I won't even watch it. It would probably sicken me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I am not sure if I said this already but here is my issue: The filmmakers have lied to try and promote the value of this film. The director said this is closer to the book than the original. How can this be when Ben Hur and Messala are now portrayed as brothers? I have the book. I know it well. This is not the original story. They also imply now, according to the director, that Massalla isn't the bad guy. They are simply "brothers that went their separate ways". There we go. They soften the edges by giving the villain some "humanity". It makes me sick. This is not a story that needed a revisionist update. The 1959 film is a timeless masterpiece, and a milestone in filmmaking history. It honestly angers me as well that they chose a cast of pretty boy actors. Where is the grit? Where is the masculinity? With a now softer "villian" I half expect a thirty minute interval of hair braiding and pedicures. I rarely say this. But I want this film to bomb. I want it to do really badly and give Hollywood the message that these types of films are not wanted. What it sounds like they've done is that they've made the film "politically correct" now. I won't even watch it. It would probably sicken me. I hate it. Can you imagine if they remade Gone With The Wind? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I am not sure if I said this already but here is my issue: The filmmakers have lied to try and promote the value of this film. The director said this is closer to the book than the original. How can this be when Ben Hur and Messala are now portrayed as brothers? I have the book. I know it well. This is not the original story. They also imply now, according to the director, that Massalla isn't the bad guy. They are simply "brothers that went their separate ways". There we go. They soften the edges by giving the villain some "humanity". It makes me sick. This is not a story that needed a revisionist update. The 1959 film is a timeless masterpiece, and a milestone in filmmaking history. It honestly angers me as well that they chose a cast of pretty boy actors. Where is the grit? Where is the masculinity? With a now softer "villian" I half expect a thirty minute interval of hair braiding and pedicures. I rarely say this. But I want this film to bomb. I want it to do really badly and give Hollywood the message that these types of films are not wanted. What it sounds like they've done is that they've made the film "politically correct" now. I won't even watch it. It would probably sicken me. I hate it. Can you imagine if they remade Gone With The Wind? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible airwave Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 MGM needs to realize remaking their own films won't bring them back to financial health. Just look at the pointless remakes of Carrie and Poltergeist. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 They need to realize a few things. The old films had something that the remakes can't capture. We're too sophisticated today to be able to reproduce that. Carrie's not even that old. Who could replace Sissy and Piper Laurie? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbear05 Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I was at work and saw the opening shot of the trailer. Morgan Freeman in silver dreds was enough to make me think "this is going to suck giant donkey balls." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 They need to realize a few things. The old films had something that the remakes can't capture. We're too sophisticated today to be able to reproduce that. Carrie's not even that old. Who could replace Sissy and Piper Laurie? They remade the first Spiderman just over a decade after the original... We will be getting a remake of Finding Dory next month. Even though the original won't be out til July. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disembodied Spirit Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 Time period pieces are of no interest to people under 30.They want dumb comedies and comic book films and thats itThere was a study on these historical films over the last 5 years.Pompeii, The Heart of the Sea...etc...all bombedHISTORY does not sell tickets anymore. The film may very well be more interesting to us older folks..butThis looks horrible.WE ALL NAILED THIS 5 MONTHS AGO!!!Time Period ACTION pieces...are a FAILStop Hollywood, just STOP!!https://www.yahoo.com/movies/ben-hur-crashes-chariot-with-114m-155003157.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 ...will suck! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Serves them right. No sympathy from me. :boo hiss: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleMoon Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 It's gotten a pretty poor rating at Rotten Tomatoes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 I'll stick with the Charlton Heston version. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 I didn't find it all that bad. It wasn't trying to replace the Heston movie and focused more on the revenge side of the tale than the religious. Pretty faithful to the source material as well. It's definitely not great. But it isn't the disaster I expected it to be. 6/10- but I think I'm being a little generous. Makes a nice change from all the superhero movies. Wouldn't mind more like this, but obviously better made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Principled Man Posted August 23, 2016 Author Share Posted August 23, 2016 It wasn't trying to replace the Heston movie and focused more on the revenge side of the tale than the religious. That's unfortunate, as the story of Ben Hur is one of redemption and forgiveness - not revenge. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghorn-leghorn Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 How long is this film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 It wasn't trying to replace the Heston movie and focused more on the revenge side of the tale than the religious. That's unfortunate, as the story of Ben Hur is one of redemption and forgiveness - not revenge. Yeah...it was nice to see them try a different angle but... It didn't work for me. But this film is OK. I'd have liked a rerelease of the 59 version in cinemas more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disembodied Spirit Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 How long is this film?123 minutes....of mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 I didn't find it all that bad. It wasn't trying to replace the Heston movie and focused more on the revenge side of the tale than the religious. Pretty faithful to the source material as well. It's definitely not great. But it isn't the disaster I expected it to be. 6/10- but I think I'm being a little generous. Makes a nice change from all the superhero movies. Wouldn't mind more like this, but obviously better made.The Charlton Heston version is too powerful for you. You have to hide behind the couch cringing like a puppy in a thunderstorm until the closing credits roll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now