Ben-Hur(ting bad)

[foghorn67]

I think some people think Heston's was the original. It wasn't. As far as the story, it's been said that this new version is far closer to the 1880 novel it's based on, than the other three versions before it. I saw the movie, and liked it. It's not great-but it's not horrible, either. It's worth the price of admission for the great sea battle scenes and the chariot race alone. If you like that kind of thing, this movie did them really well. It just isn't the kind of movie that will appeal to the general audience, sadly. As far as it being better than the 1959 version, I don't like Heston, so I have never seen that version, and probably never will. I think, had the 1959 version never existed, this movie wouldn't be getting half the flack it is getting. It isn't bad, at all. Worth a watch, but maybe for some of you, on half price night or something.

It sounds like Divergent is more of your thing.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[LevelSea]

Anyone who thinks El Cid, Ben-Hur, and Planet of the Apes weren't simply outstanding and Heston didn't fit absolutely perfect is just dumb.

Ten Commandments, Soylent Green, Touch of Evil

 

[John Connor]

This 2016 remake is apparently quite horrid, not surprisingly.

So far it's sitting at 29% after 60 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and 38/100 on Metacritic.

Actually looks pretty good. Think I'll go see it.

 

[Markbnj]

I think some people think Heston's was the original. It wasn't. As far as the story, it's been said that this new version is far closer to the 1880 novel it's based on, than the other three versions before it. I saw the movie, and liked it. It's not great-but it's not horrible, either. It's worth the price of admission for the great sea battle scenes and the chariot race alone. If you like that kind of thing, this movie did them really well. It just isn't the kind of movie that will appeal to the general audience, sadly. As far as it being better than the 1959 version, I don't like Heston, so I have never seen that version, and probably never will. I think, had the 1959 version never existed, this movie wouldn't be getting half the flack it is getting. It isn't bad, at all. Worth a watch, but maybe for some of you, on half price night or something.

I've got a first edition of the book, and it's one of my favorite stories. I doubt either movie is particularly faithful to the story, but having watched the trailer I don't think that's even the point. It looks like they have turned it into just another Hollywood CGI snoozefest. The Legend of Ben Hur the Apeman.

 

[Thebobo]

Flop at Box office - Ben-Hur, $11.4 million. Cost 100 million to make, ops.

• 1. Suicide Squad, $20.7 million.

• 2. Sausage Party, $15.3 million.

• 3. War Dogs, $14.3 million.

• 4. Kubo and the Two Strings, $12.6 million.

• 5. Ben-Hur, $11.4 million.

• 6. Pete's Dragon, $11.3 million.

• 7. Bad Moms, $8.1 million.

• 8. Jason Bourne, $8 million.

• 9. The Secret Life of Pets, $5.8 million.

• 10. Florence Foster Jenkins, $4.3 million.

 

[Eug]

Flop at Box office - Ben-Hur, $11.4 million. Cost 100 million to make, ops.

• 1. Suicide Squad, $20.7 million.

• 2. Sausage Party, $15.3 million.

• 3. War Dogs, $14.3 million.

• 4. Kubo and the Two Strings, $12.6 million.

• 5. Ben-Hur, $11.4 million.

• 6. Pete's Dragon, $11.3 million.

• 7. Bad Moms, $8.1 million.

• 8. Jason Bourne, $8 million.

• 9. The Secret Life of Pets, $5.8 million.

• 10. Florence Foster Jenkins, $4.3 million.

They actually broke into the top 5. At least they beat Pete's Dragon... barely... This was Box Office Mojo's guess before the weekend:

Suicide Squad (3,924 theaters) - $22 M
Sausage Party (3,103 theaters) - $17.8 M
Kubo and the Two Strings (3,260 theaters) - $17.2 M
War Dogs (3,258 theaters) - $13.5 M
Pete's Dragon (3,702 theaters) - $13 M
Ben-Hur (3,084 theaters) - $12 M
Bad Moms (2,811 theaters) - $7.8 M
Jason Bourne (2,880 theaters) - $7.75 M
The Secret Life of Pets (2,397 theaters) - $6 M
Florence Foster Jenkins (1,528 theaters) - $3.9 M

While I fully understand Ben-Hur's awful box office take, I still don't understand Suicide Squad's continued dominance.

 

[Ns1]

wow, strong overperform by Kubo.

 

[TallBill]

I actually liked Battlefield earth /hides

Luckily never saw it but the book was decent

 

[midwestfisherman]

Ten Commandments, Soylent Green, Touch of Evil

And don't forget, the Omega Man!

 

[Aikouka]

RedLetterMedia released an awkwardly amusing video about this today...

 

[nakedfrog]

is there really such a lack of originality in Hollywood that they chose to re-do this movie??? that is just pathetic...

...

Have you been paying no attention at all for the last decade? The answer is pretty clearly a resounding "YES".

 

[gorcorps]

They actually broke into the top 5. At least they beat Pete's Dragon... barely... This was Box Office Mojo's guess before the weekend:

Suicide Squad (3,924 theaters) - $22 M
Sausage Party (3,103 theaters) - $17.8 M
Kubo and the Two Strings (3,260 theaters) - $17.2 M
War Dogs (3,258 theaters) - $13.5 M
Pete's Dragon (3,702 theaters) - $13 M
Ben-Hur (3,084 theaters) - $12 M
Bad Moms (2,811 theaters) - $7.8 M
Jason Bourne (2,880 theaters) - $7.75 M
The Secret Life of Pets (2,397 theaters) - $6 M
Florence Foster Jenkins (1,528 theaters) - $3.9 M

While I fully understand Ben-Hur's awful box office take, I still don't understand Suicide Squad's continued dominance.

Suicide Squad picked the perfect time to release when nothing else was out.

 

[poofyhairguy]

the way things are going I suspect the 21st century will be known as "100 Years of Misplaced Nostalgia".

This is nothing. Wait until we have nostalgia about the nostalgia, like back in the 90's when we had those TV specials that looked back longingly at 70's nostalgia (Happy Days, Grease, etc.) of the 50's.

 

[NathansLove]

Hestons version was not the first but nobody cares.
It was the best. And it really didnt need a remake.

As someone who actually watched the movie, it wasn't garbage. Better than anything else currently showing as far as I can see from descriptions alone.

 

[NathansLove]

I'm more than sure there are actors you don't like that I'd say the same about. I tend to shy away from movies full of their own importance, and that to me is what the 1959 Ben Hur is. The more Academy awards it tends to win, the more people talk about how "epic" it is...the more likely I am to be let down and disappointed by it, so most of the time, I don't bother.
As far as Heston, that's right. I'll say it again: overrated. Not a bad actor, but I've never thought he was "great". Same with most of the actors in Hollyweird's Golden era that we are supposed to think are all that. Unlike some, I think for myself and form my own opinion and don't just nod and agree that he's all that great. Planet of the Apes was okay, but that movie is so cheesy, it's hard to find fault with it, entertainment wise.

 

[NathansLove]

It sounds like Divergent is more of your thing.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

I don't even know what this movie is. And since I don't know, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be interested.

 

[NathansLove]

I've got a first edition of the book, and it's one of my favorite stories. I doubt either movie is particularly faithful to the story, but having watched the trailer I don't think that's even the point. It looks like they have turned it into just another Hollywood CGI snoozefest. The Legend of Ben Hur the Apeman.

I enjoyed it, and make no apologies for my enjoyment. I do think the main selling point is that the two male leads really make you believe in the bond between the characters. That is integral, because if you don't buy it, everything that happens afterward doesn't matter. There is no emotional investment.
As far as being easily impressed, nope. I'm not. And I don't just go eat up typical Hollywood garbage, either. I did read the chariot race is not as CGI as most people think, that it took over 45 days to shoot and included 90 horses(probably a big chunk of the budget).
There are countless movies released in the last twenty years I've never seen, never will see because of having no interest in the subject matter. But then, I'm biased in the sense that it's just nice to go to a movie and not have to deal with cursing, nudity, and other crudity that passes for "entertainment" these days.

 

[NathansLove]

Actually looks pretty good. Think I'll go see it.

It was good for me, I give it a 8 out of 10. Certainly not perfect, a bit slow in the beginning, but overall quite enjoyable. Then again, I'm a female and as one of my friends said "it's more a guy thing" but I've always gravitated towards action oriented films rather than chick flicks. Add in wonderful chemistry with the two leads, and the brotherly love aspect as well as the betrayal and redemption, it was a must see for me.

 

[Ns1]

the real question is are you religious and over 25, because that seems to be the only demographic that went to the movie.

 

[NathansLove]

Yes to both, but speaking as someone who saw it twice, that's not the only demographic that went to the movie. No kids, obviously-but audience ranging from late teens to over fifty. I didn't do a poll as to who was Christian and who wasn't, of course. I don't know why this is the "real question". The real question should be, was it good or not. I think it was. Everyone else is free to make up their mind, but personally.....I don't pay attention to someone's opinion of a movie they haven't even seen. That's ridiculous IMO-especially listening to critics. I mean, critics like some of the driest, dullest movies ever created. It's nice if a movie I like gets good reviews, but I like what I like, regardless of what critics think about it. Or anyone else, for that matter.

 

[Ns1]

Well, I guess that explains why you liked it and decided to register on this forum for the sole purpose of defending the movie.

 

[purbeast0]

THIS JUST IN - CRITICS DON'T LIKE NEW MOVIE. MORE AT 11.

This sounds basically just like every new movie score to come out in the past decade other than a handful.

Not saying the movie looks good or anything, but this is the norm now a days. The exception is when there are good scores.

 

[NathansLove]

Well, I guess that explains why you liked it and decided to register on this forum for the sole purpose of defending the movie.

Not that I have to defend myself, but: what difference does it make why I joined the forum? Didn't realize you had to have certain reasons, or pass a test, to be here.
My opinion is just as valid as yours about this film-actually more so, if you haven't seen the movie. Secondly-there have been quite a few so called "Christian" films, or biblically based films, over the years, that I have either never seen, or watched and didn't like. Thirdly-I wouldn't call Ben Hur a Christian film, per se. This version more so than previous ones, from what I have read of the others. But it is still very much a secular movie, though with some Christian views. Personally, the main reason I watched it, was simply because I was in the mood to see a movie, and everything else out looked like a ridiculous waste of time. And for those who consider paying to see Ben Hur a waste of time, that's your prerogative. It doesn't make a bit of difference to me one way or the other. I didn't START this discussion. I only added to it, as someone-apparently the only one-who has seen the film.

 

[LevelSea]

Well, I guess that explains why you liked it and decided to register on this forum for the sole purpose of defending the movie.

lol, i guess part of that 100 million was budgeted for forum shilling

 

[NathansLove]

THIS JUST IN - CRITICS DON'T LIKE NEW MOVIE. MORE AT 11.

Exactly. It isn't exactly shocking. And as I've already said, most of what critics do like bores me to tears.