Let's start with the most obvious one: Morgan Freeman and his dreadlocks, which are so distracting that they should have their own screen credit; they steal every scene they're in. This may possibly be due to the fact that Freeman appears to be sleepwalking through his part... his hair emotes more than he does. Case in point: it's an established fact that the fiery Sheik Ilderim treasures his horses above all else, referring to them as his children. In this version, one is sick and he evinces no concern and then, in the race, one of his horses is apparently killed and he doesn't seem to care- or even notice. If you contrast his indifferent portrayal of Ilderim with Hugh Griffith's larger-than-life character... yikes.
As I stated in Part I of this review, 2016 Ben Hur is not a good movie. It always puzzles me when film companies decide to remake a classic movie despite the fact that they have nothing new to offer on the subject. There is, of course, much about the Ben Hur story which has been left unexplored, but this film doesn't go near any of that. Instead, it travels the well-tread ground of previous and, certainly in the case of the 1959 movie, better films. It would be a stretch to even call Ben Hur 2016 mediocre, for a variety of reasons. Let's start with the most obvious one: Morgan Freeman and his dreadlocks, which are so distracting that they should have their own screen credit; they steal every scene they're in. This may possibly be due to the fact that Freeman appears to be sleepwalking through his part... his hair emotes more than he does. Case in point: it's an established fact that the fiery Sheik Ilderim treasures his horses above all else, referring to them as his children. In this version, one is sick and he evinces no concern and then, in the race, one of his horses is apparently killed and he doesn't seem to care- or even notice. If you contrast his indifferent portrayal of Ilderim with Hugh Griffith's larger-than-life character... yikes. There's the additional problem that the filmmakers had Morgan-frickin'-Freeman in their movie and obviously felt they had to use him as much as possible. So they've added some completely superfluous narration with, naturally, Freeman as the narrator. I'm not a fan of narration at the best of times, and the stuff in this movie is ghastly. For example, at the start of the film we see Judah and Messala competing with each other, having a horse race in the desert: "They were very competitive with each other." Freeman intones helpfully, in case we missed the point. Also, Freeman (I can't refer to him as Ilderim because he is completely unbelievable as the Sheik: throughout the movie he is just bored Morgan Freeman in a bad wig) has to- naturally- be all-wise. In the book (and other movies) after his stint as a galley slave, Ben Hur is adopted by the Tribune Arrius and taken to Rome, where he trains in combat and also chariot racing, becoming a champion driver. In this version, Ben Hur has never raced a chariot before, but Morgan Freeman somehow recognizes his natural talent- apparently just by looking at him- and asks him to ride in the race, which is taking place almost immediately. He gives Judah what appears to be one instructional lesson on how to drive a chariot and then it's race time, against a bunch of experienced drivers including Messala. Not to worry, though: Freeman stands next to the track and calls directions to Ben Hur during the race, telling him when to shorten his reins, etc. Ignoring the wild impossibility of all of this, apart from anything else, how could Judah possibly hear Freeman's voice over the racing chariots, the dozens of thundering horses, and the thousands of screaming people in the arena's stands? Rank idiocy. "Mentor. Trainer. Protector." Sheik Ilderim was none of these things to Ben Hur. They're only saying this because it's Morgan-frickin'-Freeman. And- according to their own story- the two know each other for maybe three days. In the novel (and other movies) Ben Hur did have two men who filled those roles: Quintus Arrius and Simonides. This film, however, makes the weird decision to kill both of them straight off, removing them from the story entirely. I can't stress enough how much this sabotages the narrative; without them the story just doesn't work. First, in the actual novel, Quintus Arrius adopts Judah Ben Hur as his son and heir. This provides Judah with the training he needs, and also the Roman citizenship which is necessary for him to confront Messala. When he returns to face his enemy, it's with the power of the Arrius name behind him, making it impossible for Messala to just make him disappear. The 2016 movie has Arrius die in the sea battle and Ben Hur just escape from the sinking ship and make his way back home with no training, power, or resources. This makes no sense, because when he confronts Messala, it's as an impoverished escaped slave. All Messala would have to do would be to have Judah re-arrested and executed... problem solved, no muss or fuss. No explanation is given for why he refrains from doing this. Simonides is Esther's father and bond-slave/ steward to the House of Hur. In my opinion, none of the movies have done justice to this fantastic character, but the 2016 version is the worst because they kill him off at the beginning of the film. Stupid, stupid. In the novel, when Judah and his mother and sister are arrested and sentenced, the Roman government confiscates all of the Hur's properties and wealth. Or tries to; Simonides the steward refuses to tell them where the money is, even though Messala has him taken into custody and tortured unmercifully. The torture leaves his body crippled, but his spirit unbroken. The shock of what's happened kills his wife, leaving him alone with his young daughter- Esther. He takes her to live in Antioch where, using his brilliant financial mind, he keeps the Hur fortune out of Roman hands by investing it off shore, in shipping enterprises and other sound financial ventures. In the years while Judah is gone and presumed dead, Simonides increases his fortune many times over and, when Ben Hur returns, it's to find that he is unbelievably wealthy, between all the Hur money and what he's inherited from Arrius. Despite his physical limitations, Simonides possesses a razor sharp mind, a canny intelligence, and a hardened, cynical outlook (except where Esther is concerned) thanks to the Romans for whom he now has a burning hatred. He's more than willing to plot the Roman downfall with Judah, who looks to him for advice and aid. It also means that when Messala is crippled in the race, justice has come full circle as he suffers the same fate to which he condemned Simonides. The 2016 movie dispenses with all of this, to the detriment of its so-called plot. But of course, the plot of this film suffers from a lot more problems, which I'll cover in part III of this review.
Comments
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |