فيلم Ben-Hur


Ben-Hur is a movie starring Jack Huston, Toby Kebbell, and Rodrigo Santoro. Judah Ben-Hur, a prince falsely accused of treason by his adopted brother, an officer in the Roman army, returns to his homeland after years at sea to seek...

Other Titles
Ben-Huras, Ben-Khur, Бен-Хур, ベン・ハー, 賓漢, Ben Hur, Ben-Hur - Printul fugar, Ben-Hurs, Μπεν-Χουρ
Running Time
2 hours 3 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
History, Action, Adventure, Drama
Timur Bekmambetov
Keith R. Clarke, Lew Wallace, John Ridley
Jack Huston, Toby Kebbell, Nazanin Boniadi, Rodrigo Santoro
Audio Languages
اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
اللغة_العربية, 日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

Judah Ben-Hur, a prince falsely accused of treason by his adopted brother, an officer in the Roman army, returns to his homeland after years at sea to seek revenge, but finds redemption.

Comments about history «Ben-Hur» (20)

Carolyn Boyd photo
Carolyn Boyd

This film was superb and the story was fantastic. I loved how the German forces moved about during this film. The cast is excellent. I especially loved Will Ferrell in this film. He's a wonderful actor and he played a very wonderful character. Ben Gazzara was a very good person, he was tough and he played a very capable role. I enjoyed this film. I think this is the best film I've ever seen.

Roger photo

I've read some comments from other reviewers who complained about the pace of the movie and how unrealistic it was. First of all, it's the film's character Ben-Hur, not the actors, who get the bare bones of the plot. We know about how Roman conquests are going to change the history of Egypt, Rome and the world. We've seen this happen. In the first film, they even depicted that it was the Roman general Lucius Cornelius Scipio (the crucified emperor) who devised this. The movie shows him at a parade, all the various tribes of the Iberian Peninsula (that is, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, etc.) are in great costumes. Then the general is captured by an Egyptian army of African slaves who have grown up on the plantation. No effort is made to get them out, which is not in the history of these nations. The Spanish race is mentioned in passing and the fact that the African tribes have nearly wiped out the Spaniards is added to the movie as if to add it to the story, rather than show it as a historical fact. In any event, the movie's story focuses on a war between two rival Egyptian tribes. The slaves' defeat of the first Egyptian army at the end is based on a Biblical figure, who is supposed to have saved Ben-Hur from death, and who, in the Bible, is said to have been a man of knowledge and action. The other Egypt is portrayed as a brutal and bloodthirsty people. For a tale of a slave's rebellion against a tyrant and his capture and re-capture by the slave-owner, it's a refreshing change to see that Ben-Hur did not flee like a scared animal. The movie's ending makes more sense to the history of the Middle-East than some other films about such a region. I would say that the only thing I didn't like about the movie was the editing. The various battles were shown very briefly. The story and plot came together at the end, but the editing left a lot of gaps. I did not understand why the slave-owner thought that the elephants, who came to the aid of his army, were really the army. I didn't understand why the slaves were so unruly. I don't think this is in any way a negative thing. I just thought that the story was more interesting and fascinating if the movie had taken up much more of the time. The movie has a very biblical ending, with a great moral of hope. I think it was not presented with enough emphasis on the Egyptians' brutality. The ending should have taken up more of the movie, and it should have done so with much more emotion. All in all, a good film for the genre of Roman history.

Andrea Austin photo
Andrea Austin

After waiting 3 years for this movie to be released I was really eager to see it. I must say, after watching it I have mixed feelings about it. While I am a Christian, the characters were meant to be much more faithful to the Biblical story. They were not like the other men, but their presence in the army was meant to be a reminder of the glory of God. The acting was outstanding, the story flowed well, the settings were beautiful, and the special effects were very good. It was a great start for director Leone, but like most westerns it could have been so much better. For me, I gave it 7 out of 10 stars. It was one of the best, but it could have been so much better.

Willie R. photo
Willie R.

Some may say that the portrayal of the main characters is stereotypical. My answer is: I didn't know any of these characters before seeing this movie. Granted, we know their lineage and the influence of each other. But this movie shows what it was like to be a slave in the Old South and how that influenced everyone around you. The director did a great job of making the background that much more believable. The acting is very good, especially by Renee Zellweger, as well as Steve Buscemi and Marlon Wayans, who are both very good. Don't expect anything amazing here, but some good entertainment.

Jane V. photo
Jane V.

Andrea Martin portrays the French Empress Eugenie and she has the most interesting and tragic role in the film. She is a mother and wife who is motivated by passion to escape from Europe, to escape from the strict rules and to find a way to live in peace with her family. But one of her sons, Armand (Eugene Levy) wishes for a better life, and will end up committing the same crime that she committed when she moved to the wild. And finally she endures the curse that comes with her bloodline, and is driven to the edge of madness. I really liked the film. The costumes and makeup were wonderful. The location shooting of the film was very very successful. And the musical score, which is always important in any film, was simply wonderful. In the end, I didn't like the ending and it wasn't what I was expecting. But overall the film is a well made film that is entertaining and memorable.

Wayne M. photo
Wayne M.

In the beginning, I found some of the similarities between the first two movies to be ridiculous. But with time, I began to become impressed. I also found myself cheering at times, whereas in the first movie, I almost walked out. I thought the acting was better, especially that of Brando and Falcone. As for the special effects, you get a special effect when you see them for the first time. Nowadays, you can get special effects on TV or see them in the movies. These days, they're in Blu-ray and DVD. I also think that the first 2 movies were better than the first 3-D movie. The movie itself is just that - a movie. It is fun to watch, but not too much, and not too many laughs. I think the real satisfaction comes when you've watched it a second time, and then you don't think about the movie at all.

Brandon W. photo
Brandon W.

Lea, the captain of the Red Sea's ship, has been captured by the men of the very same Carthaginian fleet that killed his own brother in front of him. Now Lea must escape with the other captives on the ship while the Carthaginians make their stand. The attack begins, and many die, but the survivors, by and large, make it to safety before the next attack by the Carthaginians. The fourth film of the 2003-well, actually the fifth (?) film of the 2003-starring Anthony Hopkins and Morgan Freeman, this is one of those films that you either love, hate or are indifferent towards. I will try to be as neutral as possible in this review, and I'll try to explain why I don't particularly like this film. This film is the fifth in the series of the 2005-based epic about the Roman Republic and the Civil War. This film is also the fifth film that I have seen that Anthony Hopkins has done. He does a good job in this film. The first two films, he plays different characters. He is Gaius Julius Caesar, and he was in this film. The final film of the series, he is back as Julius Caesar. This film is about how the Romans, who are the Good Guys, are involved in a Civil War with the Carthaginians. Julius Caesar is like the last man standing, and he has to deal with it. In the other films, he is doing various things. The first two films, he was in various different situations and situations. In the third film, he is more of the same, although he is more involved in the civil war. In the fourth film, he plays both Caesar and Caius. In this film, he is more of the same. He is also quite involved in the civil war, and is not the same as he was in the previous films. This film was good because he had done most of the films in the series, and this film was the best. It was the first film that he was not playing one of the same characters as the previous films, although he did play two characters. Anthony Hopkins was good as the main character, but I don't like him that much. This film does a good job of highlighting Roman history, although I do not consider myself a Roman history expert. The first part of the film is about the Civil War and shows the battle of Capernaum. The second part of the film, which is the end of the Civil War, is about Julius Caesar being taken prisoner by the Carthaginians. In the beginning of the film, it shows the Civil War, but the Civil War does not show much of the Civil War. After Julius Caesar is taken prisoner, the third part of the film is about Caesar escaping. After he escapes, he fights the Carthaginians. And of course, all of these fighting and fighting does not take place in front of us. The Carthaginians in the Civil War is a couple of pages long, but it doesn't show too much. In this film, the Civil War goes on for a while, and the fighting is a lot longer, and it doesn't show that much. The fourth film of the series, he is in two different places. He is playing Caesar again. He is still getting into a lot of trouble with the Carthaginians. He is also in his new life. He is an emperor, and he is alive. In the last film, he is not alive. I don't like him that much either. This film has good parts. The first two parts

Dorothy M. photo
Dorothy M.

The special effects, the battles, the sailing, the magic. just amazing, and it is actually well worth watching. See it, if you can. It's also more than enough to get your self out of a slumber.

Jennifer K. photo
Jennifer K.

While "Ben Hur" is not a worthy adaptation of the great novel by William Shakespeare, it is not a bad movie, and does a good job of portraying the tragic events of Christ's life. Robert Redford did an excellent job of bringing the great character of Christ to the screen, and at times you feel that you are seeing "Ben Hur" play out. But the movie falls a little flat when it comes to embellishing the fact that Christ lived, and performed miracles. It also seems a bit wrong to end the film on a note that says, "Christ lived so we could do miracles." In a film with such a complicated plot, why would anyone think that that was such a good idea? I won't spoil the ending, but I will say that the film, as a whole, did a good job of showing the balance that Christ's life had between the miracles and the discipline required to live the gospel. To sum up, "Ben Hur" is worth seeing if you enjoy the historical accuracy of the Biblical story. There is also a nice side story with a very effective performance from the late actor, Michael Smiley. Overall, "Ben Hur" is a good film that is well worth seeing.

Stephanie B. photo
Stephanie B.

It has to be said, that if you are a devoted Joseph Conrad fan, this movie is almost impossible to avoid, but when one considers the essential elements of the story, this movie goes beyond the point of no return. There is a definite child in everyone who can relate to this story and allude to it. First the movie must be seen from the position of a 6-yr-old. There are a lot of times when it seems that a grown-up would have carried a lot of story and intellectual content. In this respect, there is a slight difference between 'Ulysses' and 'Ben-Hur'. And there is a deep child-like quality of both stories. For the above reason, we must not expect any softening of the reality, but rather a realism of the whole story. As the old-school film critic Alfred Peck once wrote, all filmmakers like to say that this is their "realistic story", that they want to produce in their movies. Well, of course, if the writer and director are competent enough to show us the beautiful landscapes of nature, the poetry of the era and the rhythm of life, then their movie should be better than the average adventure-type of adventure-movie. And not only the great classic ones, but also other "realistic" movies. So if you consider that the story of Ben-Hur is not even close to "Ulysses" in any way, you may very well take a little adventure in the search of "Ulysses" or even a little fantasy in the attempt to find some hints on the "real life" that was made the most famous adventure-type in cinema. 'Ben-Hur' is very interesting, full of life and full of magic. The scene between the "white knight" and the Red Knight is the very first magic moment that we see in this movie. It is a moment when we can believe that all the magical power that was in the world of Ben-Hur, was spread by God. To add to all this, we have to remember the 'Harry Potter'-type of movie. There is magic all around in this movie, but most of all, we have to remember that this is real magic and there are real legends that are also true. To tell the truth, the only real moment that the movie doesn't work well is the "discovery" scene between Ben-Hur and his Uncle. But I will say the final words that Ben-Hur did a very good job of acting, it is quite hard to play a sarcastic joke or a sarcastic fat-head or something like that without making it look like this was a serious matter, but the way Ben-Hur just says it is so funny, it works very well, I laughed quite a lot throughout the whole movie. And the way he says it is the best part of the whole movie. So to sum up, this movie is not a great movie, but it is a very good movie. So if you can go see it, I bet you will not regret it, if you are a person who can relate to this kind of story, I can guarantee that you will have a very good time.

Vincent H. photo
Vincent H.

This movie in my opinion is a great piece of art, but due to its origin, it has never been marketed like the grand impact of "Godfathers" or "Scarlet, Rose, & Cuba" that it has. I think the reason is the lack of marketing hype for this movie, and I understand that the director wanted to create his own movie, but he had to make a statement about the Moncada or about human history. Also, it's hard to say what he was going for and it did not disappoint me, so I give it a 7 out of 10. I also can't help but mention that it's the first Leonardo Dicaprio movie I've ever seen, and I'm a big fan of him. This movie he was very good, as always.

Janice photo

I recently went to see "The Talented Mr. Ripley" starring Dustin Hoffman in the title role. For me, it was a good film, not a great film. It was well acted. I was moved by the emotions the two main characters were going through. But I never really cared about the characters or the story. It was great that he chose his main character as someone that he was aware that he would be able to relate to. He did that very well in this film. But his acting didn't really make me feel anything. He was good in the film, but nothing outstanding. He just went along with the roles that the script gave him to play. He did well, but it didn't really help his performance. I did enjoy it, but I didn't really care about it.

Rachel M. photo
Rachel M.

I'm a great fan of the original, and I remember the first few scenes very well. I love this movie because it takes some brave and innovative moves, and does it well. But it's a shame that some of the dialogue is a little out of place, the details of the story are too watered down, the casting of Hugh Jackman and Ben Affleck is a little too perfect. But at the end, when the tide turns, and everyone has the victory that they want, the movie is surprisingly touching, and inspiring. The action scenes are exciting and breath taking. Overall, great movie, and a great family movie. I recommend this to anyone who likes to have fun and can be convinced by great action and drama. One of the most anticipated movies of the summer.

Eric Brewer photo
Eric Brewer

One of the most iconic action movies ever made. With a multi-ethnic cast, this movie will appeal to anyone who enjoys films based on historical events. It also has a good cast. One thing that especially stands out to me is the sound design. With this type of movie, special effects do play a big role, but they are used in a creative and suspenseful way. My only criticism of this movie would be that there are a few things that I could have done with, but other than that, this movie is outstanding. It would have been nice to see the island of Crete, but this movie does show a good Greek culture, and a strong sense of pride. Many things that are a part of the culture of Crete, such as the rings that are used by Crete to mark their victory over an enemy or the belief that you can have the best of everything by finding the one "piece of the perfect marriage" when one is divorced. Overall, this movie is worth seeing. It is filled with action, suspense, and exciting action sequences, but it is also filled with a sense of pride in the Greek people and in Greek culture. There are many character interactions and several moments where characters will touch another's heart.

Albert B. photo
Albert B.

This is one of the best of the classic westerns. This film shows the things that great movies are all about. Great story, good acting and a great casting. It also shows that men are not so different from women.

Andrea F. photo
Andrea F.

Well what can I say? The trailers are good, the movie starts out great, but then there's the whole 'love story'. What is this movie? If you're a historical epics buff, then this is the movie for you. This is a film that has been surpassed and surpassed. Nothing on the screen could even come close. If you can get past the 'love story' then this movie is amazing. The performances are great from everybody (Branagh and Freeman are the best). I think that's all I'm gonna say about this film. Go and see it. (Rating: 7.5/10)

Donna M. photo
Donna M.

All over the world many thousands of young people are following their passions to live the life. For some the most interesting way to observe this passion is to go to the theatre, perhaps with friends, and to see plays. For many others the most enjoyable way to observe this passion is by the movies. But those who follow the films to the fullest never stop asking themselves, "What is my passion?" Maybe one day their name will be written on the Hollywood Walk of Fame as one of the most important movies ever made. The Exorcist, based on the novel by Charles P. Sand, is a small film with a large body of blood. A lot of questions will be raised, and the best answers may never be given. The movie is not a comedy or a tragedy, and it has a distinct quality about it that keeps us awake. It does not decide the whole story, but it does have an edge that makes us keep questioning what we are watching. Every word spoken by the director, whether it be in English or Italian, conveys a scene that has a message, a message that is extremely powerful, and the best way to interpret this message is to live the experience. Not every detail is to be absorbed by the viewer, but this is always a problem with this type of film. Often a scene that is informative or to be enjoyed can be missed or otherwise dismissed. Also there is an intrinsic feeling of evil that comes to one who watches a lot of movies. The Exorcist has been compared to other films that were made decades ago. However, many of those films were more of a character study, or, depending on the circumstances, a statement about human nature or how people should act. The Exorcist, however, is about the power of the film, and how we can be used, abused, and even manipulated by it. The film is wonderful and I recommend it to those who like it.

Elizabeth Oliver photo
Elizabeth Oliver

I admit, it took me ages to watch this movie. I've been looking for a great historical movie for quite a while, but until then, I had been looking at IMDb's page for several years, for one of those movies. However, this movie really caught my attention. I really wanted to see this movie, but I saw it a while ago and I didn't think it would be worth it. So, after years of searching, I finally decided to watch this movie. I'm glad I did, because the movie is great. I recommend this movie to any historical movie fan, even if you have not ever read the Bible. Every scene of this movie is great, and it kept me on the edge of my seat. You just have to watch this movie and take the time to get it on DVD or VHS and you'll see for yourself why I love this movie.

Eric C. photo
Eric C.

As with the original, one of the best movies I've ever seen. It's about Roman soldiers fighting in the Roman army. It's like a Roman Action movie, but with a little bit of historical background. You can see where this movie was really made by the amazing actors in the movie. I've watched this movie many times since I first saw it. I'm not a huge Galician historian. I watched it like many other movies. To make a Roman/Roman action movie, I had to like the actors, not to have a history background. But as always, this movie does not contain a history background. I recommend you watch it. My vote is seven out of ten. I have watched it again and again. This movie is definitely worth watching.

Benjamin M. photo
Benjamin M.

Many reviewers have criticized this movie as melodramatic. I think they are being kind. When we meet the cast of actors, I think they are portraying themselves in their own way. In the face of their historical achievement, they put themselves into a tough and difficult place. After all, they were trying to live as best they could for two years, an eternity in the "quagmire" of Roman society. What was still valid then, has long since lost its potency. If they were to live as if it were before, the story would have ended up the same way. I think most people would have agreed. The Romans didn't try to portray their conquests in so many beautiful and colorful ways. They had a rather simple point of view about life and the people. They loved their country, and to really live the life, they wanted to live it to its fullest. They were ambitious, and wanted to become the dominant force on the face of the world. "The only way to conquer Rome was to be brutal." This doesn't fit in the romantic film's writing. It can't justify some of the other things they did in the movie. Perhaps some of the "pivotal" scenes are sensationalized, but that's the way it was in ancient Rome. It seems to me that the writers of the romantic film and the actors had a very different mindset about this movie than the audience. Maybe the producers of the film had a different mindset. I don't know. But all I know is that this is not the story I remember, and I have only seen it once in my life. This movie should be allowed to be viewed only by those who have a strong interest in ancient history. I think it was a good historical piece, but it did not convince me that it was a good movie. I would give it a 6. I have not seen the "quagmire" version. But I think that may change after I have seen it.