Ben-Hur (Rated T)
Cast: Jack Huston, Toby Kebbell, Morgan Freeman
Genre: Historical Action Drama
Dwight's Rating: Somebody should be fired!

Whoever had the bright idea to green light yet another "retelling" of a beloved classic, should immediately be out of their job!

Remaking a film that hadn't been well executed or that was even a flop is one thing. Perhaps under the stewardship of a new director or writer, it could realize its full potential. Especially with sci-fi projects, ever-evolving and advancing new technologies can finally help a flawed production truly live up to the vision of its creative team in a way that might not have theretofore been possible. And even the passage of time alone, and the public's changing sensibilities and sensitivities, can mean audiences may be more open to revisiting once too-controversial issues.

We've seen many cases of this of late. On television, this year's reimagining of "Roots" was in many (if not most) ways superior to the groundbreaking 1977 mini-series. What it lacked in originality, the new version made up by more fully examining the complexities of the source material, allowing for deeper discussions on race issues than 1970s audiences would probably have been able to bear. However, when a film is already regarded as "timeless" and nearly perfect, one has to question whether it's worth the risks in revisiting the story.

"Imitation of Life" of 1934 is a highly-regarded critical darling, but the 1959 remake -- though not as beloved by critics -- proved to be a big box-office smash, and is the one more familiar with audiences today. The risk paid off there. But there are some things that should be off limits, and many films deserve to be on a list of movies that should never be remade. It should be considered sacrilege to even think about remaking "Gone With the Wind" or "Citizen Kane" or "The Godfather" or "The Godfather II" or "North by Northwest" or "The Sound of Music". And it should have gone without saying that "Ben-Hur" should be on that list. But alas, here we are in 2016 and there's a new "Ben-Hur" -- and it's not a sequel or even a prequel, it's an actual remake!

Interestingly, this new 2016 version is not the first remake. In fact, to be fair, the 1959 epic -- widely regarded by many as a masterpiece -- was itself the third film based on the 1880 Lew Wallace novel, "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ" -- one of the all-time best-selling books in the United States.

There have now actually been five films based on the book, including two silent films -- a short in 1907 and a 1925 classic, which heavily influenced the 1959 version -- and most recently an animated direct-to-video movie in 2003. This does not include stage plays and television productions.

So while this is not the first remake of "Ben-Hur," we must ensure that this is the last!

Why would anyone want to remake "Ben-Hur"? Arguably, the lone flaw would be the movie's exceptional length at 212 minutes (just over three-and-a-half hours).

It was a hit with audiences and critics, winning 11 Academy Awards -- a record which stood for decades until 1997's "Titanic" tied it -- taking Oscars for Best Picture, Director (William Wyler), Actor for Charlton Heston as the title character, cinematography, costume, special effects and more. It is an unbelievable spectacle, which continues to influence filmmakers and filmmaking today.

Clearly, Mark Burnett of TV's "Survivor" fame, and who was responsible for 2014's lackluster "Son of God" thinks he can do better. Why else would he and Director Timur Bekmambetov ("Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter") do this? They, along with screenwriters John Ridley IV (who won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay for the excellent "12 Years A Slave") and Keith Clarke, condense the story of this parallel tale in the time of Jesus Christ into just about two-hours, focusing more on action, than on the slow, intense, psychological drama of the '59 version.

In this retelling, Heston is replaced by Jack Huston (TV's "Boardwalk Empire") as Judah Ben-Hur, who loses everything after his adopted brother Messala (Toby Kebbell) now an officer in the Roman army, returns to Jerusalem and accuses the young prince of treason. Stripped of his title and separated from his wife (Nazanin Boniadi) and family, Ben-Hur must endure years of slavery on a galley at sea. When fate brings the estranged brothers to an epic and deadly chariot race, Ben-Hur finally gets the chance to exact vengeance on the man who destroyed his life.

As seems to be the custom today, any remake has to be louder and more brutal than what came before. As such, the new "Ben-Hur" is accompanied by levels of gruesomeness that would have caused recurring nightmares for audiences in 1959. We're talking horror-movie gross, likely to inspire the same seat-jumping and shrieks common in theaters screening teen fright-flicks.

Limbs are ripped off and bodies are shredded. It's intense and often thrilling. Had the 1959 version never been made, many might find this edition "acceptable". But unfortunately for the folks behind this film, it begs comparisons.

First of all, in a departure from the '59 edition, we actually see the face of Jesus Christ (Rodrigo Santoro) and hear him speak. While simultaneously making the Messiah almost annoying (popping up at odd times), the religious aspects of the story seem downplayed considerably. The parallel tales are not as congruent as they should be.

The bigger comparison challenges come when we see the amped-up action sequences, including the two most famous scenes, the sea-battle and the chariot race -- the latter of which is one of the best-known and most beloved 10 minutes in the history of motion pictures.

There's lots of information on the great pains and great expense that went into creating those scenes in the '59 classic. The movie had been one of the costliest ever to make, using thousands of extras and hundreds of animals, with massive and extravagant sets, taking days to film sequences. And it shows; the scale and scope of it still manages to impress audiences to this day. But here in 2016, it's far too obvious that much of this "Ben-Hur" is computer-generated. Again, for someone who never saw the previous version, it may even be impressive. But compared to what was achieved 60-years ago, it is nothing but a disappointment.

Despite this, new "Ben-Hur" was on its way to receiving my two-and-a-half star "not-bad" rating -- even with the disjointed storytelling, accelerated pace, and hokey-at-times acting. That was until the final few egregious minutes after the chariot scene. For some reason, this film has decided to go its own way with an ending radically different from the 1959 classic. That's all well and good, because even that film's epilogue was quite a departure from that of the novel, as well as the 1925 version. But this new edition wraps things up in a most ridiculous, nonsensical, "afterschool special" way that is almost insulting.

And for those of you (and apparently there are many) who feel remakes are necessary because many (younger) audiences aren't interested in watching 57-year old or 91-year old movies, well you (and they) don't ever need to watch these amazing classics. Just leave them for the rest of us who can appreciate these CGI-free masterworks that were expertly produced, directed and acted, and we can look back at the grandeur of the Golden Age of Hollywood.

Perhaps a name change would have served this production better. So far, audiences have not exactly been lining up to see this "Ben-Hur". And that's not surprising. It's hoped that this serves as a lesson to increasingly desperate Hollywood. This laziness must come to an end. The recycling of old material -- especially of the hits -- must not be allowed to continue.

o Dwight Strachan is the host/producer of " Morning Blend" on Guardian Radio. He is a television producer and writer, and an avid TV history and film buff. Email dwight@nasguard.com and follow him on twitter @morningblend969.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian