I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

This movie was a quick-and-dirty Cliff Notes version of the novel which I have read. The major events from the book were presented but many wonderful supporting characters were left out. Even what was presented was altered from the original novel including the ending. The 1959 version was much better and truer to the novel but even it left out a lot, the novel is very long but a good read.

I'm very tired of Hollywood's lack of ideas. Many of you have already read at least half a dozen negative reviews towards this remake, but I will make the effort to dedicate more time of my life to such nonsense. I've been since this project was announced being a type of character that I usually criticize, one of those "haters" who hate something before seeing it. But I think I have based my baseless hatred on substantiated elements. I proceed to explain myself. Well, the writers weren't bad, much less. There's John Ridley ("12 Years of Slave") that I have no idea what he's done this time because the script is infamous; and Keith R. Clarke ("The Way Back"). Nor did I reject the election of Marco Beltrami as composer, occupying the post of Miklós Rózsa. Needless to say, the work of Beltrami is a joke if someone tries to compare it with the wonderful composition of Rózsa for the film by William Wyler. But there were two sections that seemed like a joke in bad taste. First the cast. I don't know what can make you hire Morgan Freeman, dread him, and make him look like an aged Bob Marley; of course I don't accept that Jack Huston (even knowing that he is a very competent actor) is the substitute for the extraordinary interpretation of Charlton Heston and the third in discord; perhaps the role that almost six decades ago Stephen Boyd interpreted was now for Toby Kebbel, was the least bad of the three decisions. But coincidentally Kebbel is worse than ever. And if I don't accept these casting decisions, much less accept that the baton has the lousy Timur Bekmambetov ("Day Watch", "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter"). A decision that I don't understand either because I've been thinking about it for a year. If you want to take to the halls the more than unnecessary remake of one of the best films that the seventh art has given and that after 57 years of its premiere, it has still not aged in the least, at least do it with seriousness and quality. But no, Paramount has wanted to help make the 2016 summer the worst in a long time and I'm going to explain to you because "Ben-Hur" is one of those few special films, capable of receiving a zero note. To begin with, the planning and construction of the film career scene of the '59 film took more time than the whole process of this remake, it is an absolute declaration of intentions. But let's go into present matter. It is very easy to explain why I have given a zero to this film, although I face these lines with some fear of not making it clear enough. Beyond that there is nothing new in this movie, the problem is that there is nothing good in it; nothing that deserves to be seen or heard. It is a harmful product, which represents all the bad things that cinema can offer and goes against the possibility that it can be called art. The script changes meaningless things by becoming more flimsy and stupid with each decision (what happened to the plot of Arius?), adds unnecessary scenes and corrupts some fundamentals (the appearance of Jesus Christ, the galleys, the bet, the romantic subplot, the encounter with the family, the crucifixion, and thus hundreds). There are scenes and complete lines of dialogue that seem part of the false shots, as well as characters that are a one-dimensional, incongruous and impossible to understand disaster in which only Messala seems to be better at the initial moments, to immediately take a radical turn and inhuman that the whole movie remains until another pathetic turn at the end. In the '59 version, Messala, fatally injured, says in a triumphant tone before dying, that "the race is not over", to a puzzled Judah. In the 2016 version, we have instead, Judah and Messala forgiving each other tearfully, ending with both riding into the sunset, as if it were a Western B-movie. The truth is that Rodrigo Santoro and Jack Huston strive to build their characters, but the race was lost before it started.Then there is Bekmambetov's acts, which could and should be studied in schools as a paradigmatic example of a work totally lacking in visual style. His film is ugly, his camera tricks cause his eyes to bleed, there are constant breaks in continuity and the CGI sings twice as much as the tricks used in the movie of '59. Neither can he direct the actors or create a visual narration , nor deepen the drama between the characters, nor represent the religious component. The latter is in fact very funny, first because the dialogues of Jesus and the bride of Judah are as insubstantial as they are repetitive. Second, because there are flawed failures in all that "subplot" and especially in the new attempt to portray Ben-Hur as a contemporary of Jesus. It seems that the film lives from its incongruities, its shortcomings and its lamentable visual vices. Still, what hurts me the most isn't seeing how bad the cast acts, listening to the infernal dialogues, seeing how empty the content and ideas the film is, suffering trying to make sense of that pulseless recording in the middle of a horrible photograph, the digital zooms even in details, that each use of GoPros is like suffering a whiplash or that far above epic or dramatic is laughable; the worst thing is that each scene automatically takes you to the respective scene of the film of '59 and having to witness how they destroy it with a clean machete. Everything as an excuse to finish arriving at the chariot race (for something the movie starts with her). A tedious, frightening scene, much uglier and outdated than one of 57 years ago; and that within the set improves slightly because the film still has to deliver the worst of all its excessive footage. The final scenes and that message of redemption so trampled that one chokes, there is the worst of this hateful production that has almost completely destroyed my hopes in the seventh art. "Ben-Hur" is everything I imagined and something else. It is a perfect representation of how cinema has gone from more to less in many aspects. Bekmambetov takes a classic, opens the channel and takes out all the entrails in front of the viewer. There is nothing to save from a movie that had all the losing before you start running and also went to the race with materials of the worst quality possible. Competing in a digital circus, with sick horses, a papier-mâché quadriga and a one-armed, blind, deaf and drunk pilot; "Ben-Hur" (2016) is condemned to a well-deserved slow death, not because of defeat, but because of the lamentable spectacle that has caused us to suffer. When will Hollywood learn that masterpieces shouldn't be sullied?P.D.: I'm ashamed for the reviewers that defend this version with such senseless arguments like saying that Billy Wilder's Ben Hur wasn't so good (maybe some have never seen it) or that they left the cinema amused. I would like to know the real age of those who defends this film. What a disaster of a movie and how stupid to defend the indefensible.

I'm no fan at all of cinematic remakes and the decision to re-do the Charlton Heston classic seems very silly to me when there are plenty of flawed works that could do with being revamped. This film's fine enough as a stand-alone production but it pales in comparison to the original movie. For a modern film it's pretty decent, with plenty of historical accuracy and some nice actors chosen for the main parts. I enjoyed it well enough, at least until that ruinous pop song comes on just before the end credits, and even the religious aspect is handled quite sensitively. Jack Huston is a likeable lead who undergoes a huge character arc, and Toby Kebbell brings passion and depth to what could have been a stock bad guy role. The story flags at times but is generally lifted by solid action, sometimes featuring pretty poor CGI effects. The climactic chariot race is nowhere near as good as the original's, but I was surprised that it's still very good, especially so given that Russian director Timur Bekmambetov has previously made some very bad films indeed.

The 1959 Charlton Heston-starring classic 'Ben-Hur' defined big budget blockbusters from Hollywood's 20th century heyday. Fast forward a few generations and we have 2016's adaptation of the brother vs. brother battle royale. "Spoiler" alert - one pales in comparison to the other.Even without comparing the two, the Jack Huston and Toby Kebbell-starring film is a disappointment, as it tries to be an epic action-adventure but comes off feeling like a messy compilation of dramatic family scuffles, Roman war battles (on land and sea) and some chariot racing to boot. We see how two adopted brothers who are princes in Jerusalem grow apart after a false accusation is made against one (Huston, as Judah), resulting in his banishment and of course inevitable return to seek revenge against the other (Kebbell, as Messala).Since this is a remake of an older, celebrated film, plot originality is not at play here - everything comes down to execution. In this respect, you can tell MGM and the production team sank a lot of budget into the special effects, the set and the sound. Aside from the two frontmen, most of the rest of the supporting cast are relatively unknown, from Nazanin Boniadi (who plays Judah's wife) to Rodrigo Santoro (Jesus of Nazareth) and Pilou Asbæk (Pontius Pilate) - fresh off his role as Euron Greyjoy in 'Game of Thrones.' And then, no biblical times saga would be complete without an appearance from Morgan Freeman.While it was a valiant effort to try to shave off the long runtime of the original film, what happened here is things instead feel extremely condensed and forced. Portions of 'Ben-Hur' easily could have been left out in order to allow for a streamlined, "clean" product, but instead audiences are left confused as to what the story really is about.'Ben-Hur' is a warning sign to Hollywood that not all cinematic classics should be 21st Century- ized in an attempt to make a quick buck.