Well, at least they didn't cut Jesus out of the story (and the actress playing Tirza is cute), but I can't say I'm excited to see this.
It looks like Gladiator meets The Passion, with Morgan Freeman reprising his role from The Shawshank Redemption. Can't anyone come up with anything original anymore?
[youtube]-OE46mqgXqo&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
Ben-Hur remake -- new trailer...
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7533
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: Ben-Hur remake -- new trailer...
Morgan Freeman looks so goofy...I cannot for the life of my understand why anyone would want to remake this film in particular. Does no one in Hollywood have any sense of shame? Why not remake CASABLANCA while they're at it? Lol...this looks insanely stupid and worthless. I imagine all the charm and artistry that one can find in the 1959 film (which I know is a remake itself) will be completely absent from this version. The trailer makes the film look soulless. The score will suck beyond measure too. I hope it fails miserably. Lol...
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 10544
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: Ben-Hur remake -- new trailer...
Sixty-five years ago, we got Miklos Rozsa. Now we get Marco Beltrami.
Says it all, really.
Says it all, really.
Re: Ben-Hur remake -- new trailer...
I am just astounded that Hollywood would even attempt to remake this film; I understand if they thought they could make it better, but IMO there is no way that modern day Hollywood could ever improve on the 1959 version. Maybe they want to update it with a typical political message or something...which would just ruin it. Absolutely ridiculous.
Re: Ben-Hur remake -- new trailer...
Good grief.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 9036
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: Ben-Hur remake -- new trailer...
I finally looked at this, having just spent this Easter season watching the silent version, listening to a fine 2000 radio drama by Focus On The Family Radio Theatre and of course watching the greatest work of cinema ever made, the 1959 classic. As I've been trying to see for myself other things for the first time this year (like the 2015 "A.D.") I decided to take advantage of my free Amazon Prime download and see if this flop had any redeeming value.
It doesn't. This version is simply a disgrace. It's not a case of not having enough time to tell the story properly its the fact they go for an approach that totally misses the point of the story. We have lost the framing of the Nativity and of course that means there is no Balthasar. There is also no Quintus Arrius. But the most disgraceful thing is how they try to make Messala more "sympathetic" as an adopted brother of Judah and then they proceed to make Judah look like a total idiot regarding his condemnation. The heart of the story is how a simple ACCIDENT, a fallen piece of tile that strikes the governor ends up causing Judah's boyhood friend Messala to condemn him and his family for the sake of establishing himself solid with Rome. Judah's anger is a result of this horrible twist of fate producing this evil act from an old friend against him which is the heart of the human drama that makes the original so brilliant and compelling. But what's happened here? The incident that sends Judah to the galleys is the result of some crazed Zealot boy Judah has foolishly brought into his house after treating his wounds stealing a bow and attacking the governor himself and Judah incredibly in the chaos LETS HIM ESCAPE even though this Zealot has shamed his house and abused his hospitality and put him and his family at risk. Yet here is Judah who avoids naming names or whatever and even trying to take the fall then expecting mercy from Messala. All he had to do was turn over someone who didn't deserve this treatment. In the end, Messala's condemnation is not the act of evil it always has been. The entire framework of the story has been upended completely. I was shouting at the screen and from that point I didn't even care about Judah's plight. He literally brought his problem on himself. I suppose this change was necessary to justify t
As there is no Arrius, after Judah survives by himself when his galley is sunk, he makes his away ashore to be rescued by oh-so-noble Morgan Freeman's Sheik Ilderim. Just another awful case of ripping the guts out of the story.
Since this is such a badly written telling, I can't be forgiving of its bizarre lack of authenticity regarding Jesus who is shown doing carpentry work in JERUSALEM! The water scene that is so powerful and moving when Jesus helps Judah has the impact of a wet noodle here. We get the most unauthentic Pilate I have ever seen who is constantly wearing fur.
Good grief indeed. I'm sorry I gave this a look. 0 stars of 10 because the 1959 version is a 10 of 10 and to see how this film does NOTHING right means I can't even give it a point for anything. There are other ways you can tell this story as the radio drama I listened to proved, but that should come in the context of sticking more closely to the original Wallace novel (the 1959 version eliminated the character of Balthasar's daughter who become Messala's mistress; also the chariot race in the novel and silent version takes place more properly in Antioch and not in Jerusalem where no such arena could have existed) and not thinking you can somehow "reinvent" the story as this piece of junk tried to do.
It doesn't. This version is simply a disgrace. It's not a case of not having enough time to tell the story properly its the fact they go for an approach that totally misses the point of the story. We have lost the framing of the Nativity and of course that means there is no Balthasar. There is also no Quintus Arrius. But the most disgraceful thing is how they try to make Messala more "sympathetic" as an adopted brother of Judah and then they proceed to make Judah look like a total idiot regarding his condemnation. The heart of the story is how a simple ACCIDENT, a fallen piece of tile that strikes the governor ends up causing Judah's boyhood friend Messala to condemn him and his family for the sake of establishing himself solid with Rome. Judah's anger is a result of this horrible twist of fate producing this evil act from an old friend against him which is the heart of the human drama that makes the original so brilliant and compelling. But what's happened here? The incident that sends Judah to the galleys is the result of some crazed Zealot boy Judah has foolishly brought into his house after treating his wounds stealing a bow and attacking the governor himself and Judah incredibly in the chaos LETS HIM ESCAPE even though this Zealot has shamed his house and abused his hospitality and put him and his family at risk. Yet here is Judah who avoids naming names or whatever and even trying to take the fall then expecting mercy from Messala. All he had to do was turn over someone who didn't deserve this treatment. In the end, Messala's condemnation is not the act of evil it always has been. The entire framework of the story has been upended completely. I was shouting at the screen and from that point I didn't even care about Judah's plight. He literally brought his problem on himself. I suppose this change was necessary to justify t
As there is no Arrius, after Judah survives by himself when his galley is sunk, he makes his away ashore to be rescued by oh-so-noble Morgan Freeman's Sheik Ilderim. Just another awful case of ripping the guts out of the story.
Since this is such a badly written telling, I can't be forgiving of its bizarre lack of authenticity regarding Jesus who is shown doing carpentry work in JERUSALEM! The water scene that is so powerful and moving when Jesus helps Judah has the impact of a wet noodle here. We get the most unauthentic Pilate I have ever seen who is constantly wearing fur.
Good grief indeed. I'm sorry I gave this a look. 0 stars of 10 because the 1959 version is a 10 of 10 and to see how this film does NOTHING right means I can't even give it a point for anything. There are other ways you can tell this story as the radio drama I listened to proved, but that should come in the context of sticking more closely to the original Wallace novel (the 1959 version eliminated the character of Balthasar's daughter who become Messala's mistress; also the chariot race in the novel and silent version takes place more properly in Antioch and not in Jerusalem where no such arena could have existed) and not thinking you can somehow "reinvent" the story as this piece of junk tried to do.