Ben-Hur

I'm not sure if my criticism is for the original novel (which I haven't read), or for the Burnett and Downey production, but this movie frustrated me. My initial reaction was to ask, "Why are the film makers willing to spend lots of money putting together these extravagant spectacles but don't bother to hire writers, or, at least, consultants, who have a clue about history or the Bible. This movie understands neither the Roman occupation of Israel, the piety of the Jews of 1st century Jerusalem, nor the nature of the life of the historical Jesus, an itinerate teacher who visited Jerusalem for the appropriate Jewish festivals but probably never set up shop as a carpenter, in either Jerusalem or his native Galilee, and especially not once his ministry began (following his baptism and desert temptation). " So, my suggestion is, if you want to tell a story of a "prince of the Jews" who discovers the gospel of Jesus in a Roman occupied world, make sure your writers know at least a little bit about all three of those historical situations. I give this movie a 5 (meh) out of 10.

A new interpretation of the classic Lew Wallace novel, Ben-Hur is an epic tale of adventure. Two adopted brothers become bitter rivals when one joins the Roman army and is tasked with rooting out rebels in Jerusalem, leading him to sentence his brother to the life of a slave when he’s discovered to have harbored a would-be rebel assassin. The performances are pretty good and the production values are extraordinarily well-done, creating an authentic look and feel for the time period. The special effects in particular do an incredible job at creating dynamic action sequences; such as the naval battles and chariot races. But the writing falls short and doesn’t take the time to develop the characters or the story all that well. Yet despite its shortcomings, Ben-Hur is an entertaining film with a powerful message about forgiveness and letting go of hate.