I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Just what I expected

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

This movie was a quick-and-dirty Cliff Notes version of the novel which I have read. The major events from the book were presented but many wonderful supporting characters were left out. Even what was presented was altered from the original novel including the ending. The 1959 version was much better and truer to the novel but even it left out a lot, the novel is very long but a good read.

It was a great movie, it was easy to follow with the events! I love the way they showed us how it all began, how he thought that he had everything and lost it all but then found so much more. When I understood that the man was Jesus I got goosebumps, it was a very smart way to show us all the historic events of that time. I have to say my sister and me were left teary-eyed with the ending of Jesus, it was very emotional and respectfully done. After all, love found a way to win...again!

To me, and quite a number of others, the definitive 'Ben-Hur' version (also the best known) will always be the one from 1959 starring Charlton Heston and directed by William Wyler, a film that epitomises the term epic in every sense and in many ways iconic. A very strong case can also be made for the 1925 silent version, a huge achievement in its day and awe-inspiring in its spectacle.Unfortunately, this cannot be said for this 2016 version of 'Ben-Hur', nowhere near in the same league as the other two, pretty much insulting to them and the source material, and a mess of a film in its own right. Judging it as a film on its own, a lot of it is disastrously executed and a few good things only just about salvages it from being bottom of the barrel. It's not one of the worst remakes like 'Psycho', 'The Wicker Man', 'Rollerball', 'Ghostbusters' and 'Stepford Wives' to name examples, but to me it's down there with the most pointless and one where one questions "what was the need".Its least bad assets are some nice scenery, the sea battle scene that delivers on the tension and excitement that is severely lacking elsewhere and Jack Huston. Huston may not be as imposing or as charismatic as Heston especially, but he cuts a dashing figure and brings a quiet dignity to the title role and at least tries to give some likability. Elsewhere, 'Ben-Hur' is a failure.Visually, only the scenery is halfway decent. It is however wasted by the film constantly being shot in a far too dark and murky way, chaotic cinematography and editing that looks as though it was done on a on-its-last-legs bacon slicer. The CGI is excessive, feels shoe-horned in and gives even more of an inept video game look. Even the costumes look cheap and very anachronistic to boot.Sea battle apart, the action is undone by clumsy and chaotic choreography/staging, director Timur Bermambetov (directing throughout in a lifeless fashion, highly suggestive that he was not right for the material and clearly had badly misinterpreted it) taking it too far with the brashness and grit and by such a cheap visual look. The chariot race, brilliantly done in the 1925 film and iconic in the 1959 one, is too murkily shot, too choppily edited and too brash to be remotely exciting.Was not expecting music on the same level as one of a kind Miklos Rozsa, but this aspect was not only uninspired and forgettable it completely jars with the period and like Marco Beltrami had forgotten what kind of film he was scoring for. It's not the only thing that fails to gel. Failing even more are the forced and heavy-handed religious and cultural elements and especially one of 2016's most cringe-worthy, embarrassingly out of place and pointless scenes in Jesus' epilogue.'Ben-Hur' is very poorly written, with lots of melodrama and awkwardness and no heart or intrigue. The story really struggles to find its own identity and brings forth few ideas of its own. The famous scenes incorporated are completely diminished generally in impact, thanks to the visual ineptitude, being far too brash and breakneck in pace and the over-emphasis on the gritty tone. There is nothing epic here, instead one isn't ever entirely sure whether to consider it a completely soulless biblical drama or a completely humourless parody of 'Life of Brian'.Regarding the cast, near-uniformly poor. Excepting Huston, who still isn't particularly great. Toby Kebbell fails to bring much threat or complexity to Messala, who is more stock than menacing or conflicted. The scenes between him and Huston are too soap-operatic to be believable. Simonides and Quintas are so mishandled in screen time (under-utilised) and development (one-dimensional) that the point of them being there is questioned. Faring worst are Rodrigo Santoro, trying too hard as Jesus in an interpretation so bizarre and out of kilter it was like he accidentally wandered into the wrong film, and the normally dependable Morgan Freeman looking like he wasn't even trying.Overall, a mess with a lot of elements executed disastrously. There is definitely far worse out there but this was near-incompetent stuff with a few small salvageable elements. 3/10 Bethany Cox

For the past few years, the Metro Goldwyn Mayer studio has been obsessed with making sequels and remakes to its properties. Almost all of these efforts have not done well with critics or at the box office, and this remake of "Ben Hur" is no exception; it is yet another unnecessary remake. Oh, I guess it's not without merit. The sets, costumes, camera-work, and special effects do often (though not always) beat those that were in the 1959 version - or for that matter, the silent 1925 version. But this remake lack soul. It often feels like a rushed version of the story, lasting only about two hours in length instead of over three hours like the 1959 version. The characters are often written to lack proper dimension and personality to make them really come alive and make us like (or dislike) them. When it comes to the acting, only Morgan Freeman makes much of an impression - and he's clearly giving an autopilot performance. The chariot race sequence does have some excitement, I admit, though there are some confusing edits and direction that make it sometimes hard to follow and inferior to the race in the 1959 version. If you have ever wondered what a Cliff Notes version of a movie would have been like, only then should you see this ill- advised remake.