There's not much reason to discuss the women characters- especially Judah's mother and sister, because they get short shrift in this film, even more so, I'd argue, than in the 1959 movie. They get a bit of time at the very start of the film, to establish that Tirzah is in love with Messala, and that her mother isn't awfully keen on him, and that's about it. A bit more time is spent on Esther, but not much and this film makes the curious decision to have her and Judah be married from the beginning. Now in the book, Esther and Ben Hur don't even meet until he returns from Rome. In the 1959 film, they know each other but aren't married or even engaged. In fact, Judah thinks she's gone off to Antioch to marry someone else. But in the 2016 film, as they're already married, their relationship seemingly has nowhere to go, and the movie doesn't even try to flesh it out. It's a shame really, because the character of Esther- as I also said of Simonides- is one which has never been satisfactorily portrayed in film.
The writing is a major problem, because it's lazy. No attempt was made to be historically accurate in the least and so you never believe for a moment that these characters inhabit the first century A.D. I've already mentioned in a previous post a couple of idiotic errors, such as having Pilate as governor of Judea when it was Gratus, and having Jesus living in Jerusalem instead of Nazareth. But these characters also don't talk, walk, or act as though they're from another time period. I mean, Ben Hur even says "Oh, my g-d" on a couple of occasions. Leave aside the fact that Jews wouldn't even say the name of God at that time- it was too holy and sacred- and always referred to Him as "Adonai" (My Lord), but O.M.G. sounds 'way too modern- as does much of the dialogue. There's only a halfhearted attempt at period dress as well (we won't talk about Morgan Freeman's dreads again). Take, for example, Ben Hur's riding outfit; ignore the Esther actress behind him, they're obviously between takes, but that's his actual costume: trousers and a vee neck sweater.
In any case, their wardrobe and dimwitted dialogue conspired against these actors to make their characters less than convincing, and the casting and plot completed the job. Take Messala, for instance. The dude playing him- I can't remember his name- would be more suited to playing the muscle instead of a Roman patrician. Messala 1959 vs Messala 2016: who looks like the powerful, ruthless Roman here?