Sorry for Timur Bekmambetov. I knew him in another light. In fact, these two sentences are a comprehensive feature of the historical action-drama "Ben-Hur". It is clear that the craft of modern classics can not overcome William Wyler's unique 1959 record holder, which became the second most profitable movie in all-time cinema history (after "Gone with the Wind") and held that position quite time, and his 11 Oscar Awards continue to be record-breaking, until the appearance of the Titanic in 1997. It is a fact - the new generations will not rush to watch something created half a century ago (not to mention the first short screening of 1907 or the interpretation of Ramon Novaro from 1925), however well aware that Charlton Heston has acquired his iconic acting status, thanks to Ben-Hur (if the actor's name speaks anything at all).
Paramount and MGM have decided that their rights to the original, the literary original, are the same, so why do not they tidy up another, chronologically attractive - in the sense of appealing new faces and (eventually) advanced technologies, - a cinema adventure. But their bills are confused. Whether or not they have correctly judged Bekmambetov's abilities, or whether he has been tied to a strap, whether they has given him too much freedom (and he has decided to burn), or dictated to him exactly what he has to do - it will remain a mystery that would we were distracting in the dream if we really care for the movie. The bad thing is that it is as if Ben-Hur fall immediately into the category of "easy to forget" summer chases (no matter if they are cars or chariots) that have the potential and they have wasted it. Maybe the problem is in the script? But the idea is to follow the literary original and take some good things from Wyler's legendary movie - what could be wrong? In an attempt to explain, the desert wells can be brought in. The important thing is that the new Ben-Hur remains ridiculous, old-fashioned, and a hollow reading of a familiar story without the potential to focus the attention of the audience. For the maniacs of Roman history, arenas, and chariot races, the film will be superficial; for the Christian maniacs, the film will be heartless and insufficiently focused on Jesus, and for film-enthusiasts the film is an insult. It is unnecessary to delve into all the clichés that the narrative is wearing. The plot is clear, the story is familiar - the Jew and the Roman are growing up as brothers, the Roman devoted to a military career in the passage of troops, headed by Pilate (unreasonable, but immediately hating the image and the Danish actor Pilo Asbek) through Jerusalem the bustle in which Judas Ben-Hur is sentenced to a slow death in the galleys; after he has raced together with the other slaves for several years, the ship to which he is a prisoner is broken. He survives and falls into the Arabian (a boring and impassive image in which he could have been anyone except Morgan Freeman). After rescuing one of his snow-white mares, Judas and the caravan reach Jerusalem - and our hero is ready to pour out the hatred that has kept him on his stepfather all the years. They go out into the arena, where they follow the famous race. We all know what's going on at last, but nothing in the narrative to this end is surprising or touching viewers, the film is like a hollow, beautifully painted shell.
.jpg)
The responsible for the appearance - the operator, the stage designer, the costume designer - have done well with their assignments - noble envy of the lush details in the rich Jewish home. Impressive work has been cast on the revival of the amphitheater, and the fact that the team abstained from the excessive use of CGI effects. But the presence of the characters does not justify the labor thrown in an effort to make an attractive, epic blockbuster. Secondary heroes may remain unnamed - even Judas Esther's wife, which has been given a relatively longer screen time, is a classic cliché like "a book". Toby Kettle's Messala is wooden and declarative, only Jack Houston demonstrates an attempt to shade Judas. Perhaps her legacy says the word - the grandson of legendary John Houston and nephew of Anjelica Houston probably does not want to let himself be mediocre, and he is also aware that the generations to come will compare his performance to that of Charlton Heston. As a matter of fact, my personal opinion is that Heston does not show exceptional acting skills in the role of Ben-Hur, so it is not very difficult to be "offended." I do not say that Houston does, but I think they are both equally good and executive (without creative complicity), according to the tasks they are assigned to. And we came to look at Jesus from Nazareth - the role is entrusted to Rodrigo Santoro, who has wonderful qualities, but his film career suffers from the choice of inappropriate roles. I mean some of his performance in the past - in this movie, I can not imagine someone who is more appropriate than him. But scenario incidents of the image are so tendentiously poster that the presence of the whole thread with the subject of faith seems to be artificially sewn to the plot. It is a curious fact that Wallace draws inspiration from a long conversation during a trip with a civil war veteran and prominent agnostic, Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll - after this meeting, the author acknowledges that he felt ashamed of his ignorance ; He further states that when he began to write "Ben-Hur," "He was at least not influenced by religious prejudices and did not believe in the existence of God or Christ." People's nature is changing, Wallace is no exception, and then embraces Christianity, but the most important thing about the novel is the detailed exploration of the past in which he buries himself in an attempt to create the most authentic background for his melodramatic and adventurous history. In Bekambeet's film, the final accent with the cross of the hill is a grotesque ploy and fake, making it the last stone to kill the good impression of Houston's presence.
Judas Ben-Hur is conceived as a symbol, but not to the new man who is revealed in faith, but to the loving, peaceful nobleman who is broken by life, but - as he himself tells his wife - hatred and desire for must keep it alive all the years of trial. It is these feelings that are the real reason why Ben-Hur is standing in the arena chariot and doing his best to defeat his brother. After the end of the rivalry, it is natural for every normal person to wash away the bitterness of the memories and to hug their relatives. There is no need to interfere with the ever-forgiving "God's" love - the result is sown instead of inspirational. Even if Jesus had ever lived in Nazareth, whom the Romans crucified, even if he shared his thoughts with listeners, and they had magnified him as a messiah - did he not say what all the people know? Are all the creators of the wretched humanity, with their artistic words and music, not repeating exactly this one and the most important truth - "All we need is love"? Creating idols, dressing ideas in institutions, blindly following fictional potions always leads to the collapse of civilizations. The stronger we refuse to grasp this truth, and in the so-high-tech XXI century, the more secure we are going to a spectacular collapse in nothingness. Because faith divides us and we have not learned to love ...