OVERRATED BUT STILL CLASSIC ONE...

Rating: 8/10 (5 August 2003)

And then there was Ben Hur... Everybody must have seen the film tons of times (every Easter telly shows it) and there are some things I don't understand.... Overwhelmed with Oscars, being one of the most expensive productions ever (if it wasn't a success it would have meant the bankrupcy of MGM!) but is it so much different from all those other long big movies...? Is it so much better than Cleopatra, does it differ so much from The Ten Commandments or is it so much more original than Quo Vadis? You know it isn't... The sole thing that made this movie so outstanding is the use of a wide screen and the money that was set free to build up such an unique set. The chariots-scene is of course a classic but I am convinced that it has more to do with the developped technology rather than William Wyler's talent cos after all he was a frequent director but all of them are nothing but nice pictures. The acting isn't great either... Charlton Heston plays his role in a classic way, you can even say nothing bad about it but come on, it's not outstanding, not? The scenes with Jesus...well, we saw them all in those other Biblefilms and also the story of Ben Hur lasts 3 hours and a half but can be told in a few lines, not? But as said this movie is so classic, so important that everyone must have seen it and I even dare to give it an 8 (most of the movies I watch get a 7, mind you) but 42 years later it absolutely doesn't deserve to be titled as best movie ever as so many do.