Ben-hur lives up to its classic reputation
Ben-Hur (Blu-ray) Warner Home Video
out of 5
Back when epics were still epic and actors performed in the middle of massive sets, instead of in front of green screens, Ben-Hur was one of the astonishing films of its day.
Better than 50 years later, it’s still pretty astonishing to watch, particularly on Blu-ray. The story of Judah Ben-Hur’s (Charlton Heston) quest for vengeance over the man who imprisoned him, his mother and his sister makes for a timeless tale that couples beautifully with today’s technology.
Admittedly I’d never seen this classic (a winner of 11 Oscars) before this version and it was the perfect way to do so. The clarity of the picture makes it hard to believe it was released in 1959 and the sound is about as good as you can expect from a movie of that vintage. The scope of the sets is something to behold and younger fans should really appreciate the fact that they weren’t computer generated.
The legendary chariot race could easily slide in with any of today’s action movies. In fact, on the commentary track, film historian T. Gene Hatcher notes that director William Wyler wanted to make sure he outdid the race in the 1925 original only to decide he needed to at least match it. Should Ben-Hur be remade again (as there is some talk about), today’s filmmakers will still have to live up to a lot.
With this release you won’t find much in the way of special features. There’s a few trailers (the original theatrical trailer is a must watch just to compare it to modern-day trailers) and commentary from Hatcher and Heston (recorded at different times and spliced together). Heston provides a few nice insights and Hatcher’s knowledge of the film is pretty amazing, but he comes off very dry. There’s also an audio track allowing you to only hear the Oscarwinning score by Miklos Rózsa.
This is the kind of movie that makes you wish making-of documentaries were standard back then.
There are versions out there with more special features for the film’s biggest fans, but for someone just looking to get acquainted with a classic, this will do more than fine.
— Tim Switzer
My Brother Jonathan
BBC
out of 5
This 1985 miniseries, based on an Edwardian novel, starred then-28 year old Daniel Day-Lewis before he achieved international fame.
Winner of three subsequent Best Actor Oscars (My Left Foot, 1989, There Will Be Blood, 2007 and Lincoln, 2012), Day-Lewis has an extraordinary ability to inhabit a role, a talent clearly evident in this four-hour production.
Day-Lewis plays Jonathan Dakers, an earnest young doctor who works among the poor in a down-at-the-heels English industrial town, where he encounters the prejudice of wealthy physicians who snub the needy in favour of well-off patients.
As a child, Jonathan was unfairly compared by his parents to his dashing, athletic younger brother Harold (played as an adult by Benedict Taylor). Harold gets to go to university and pursue a dream of a sporting career, while Jonathan devotes himself to medicine. The favouritism doesn’t prevent the boys from building a close relationship.
Jonathan falls in love with the cool, aristocratic Edie Martin (Caroline Bliss — Miss Moneypenny in the Bond films The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill), but is frustrated that she considers him only a friend (she’s secretly in love with Harold).
Jonathan is also unaware that someone has an unrequited crush on him, too — Rachel (Barbara Kellerman), the daughter of his elderly partner Dr. Hammond.
It’s a wistful tale about idealism and hope. Sometimes life works out for the better, sometimes not.
There’s a fascinating featurette on the town of Dudley, where the story is set.
— Andy Cooper
Oliver Twist Entertainment One out of 5
With this version of the classic Dickens novel having been produced in 1982 — and re-released this month — it might take a few minutes for lovers of current period pieces to get used to some 30-year-old quirks and imperfections in this genre.
But it didn’t take long to get into this film, which is as faithful an interpretation of the classic story as one can get in 99 minutes. Many of the characters are delightfully horrid and colourfully portrayed by some high-calibre actors — among them George C. Scott as the devious Fagin and Tim Curry as the despicably brutal Sikes.
The child actors in the film are pretty amazing, with Martin Tempest playing a charismatic Artful Dodger and a diminutive Richard Charles taking on the title role. Charles, with his expressive blue eyes, is heartbreaking in the scene where he begs for another bowl of gruel for a starving friend — “Please, sir, I want some more.”
The film stays true to Dickens’ story, which in its time led to better understanding of the struggles of the impoverished — children in particular. Dickens’ use of black humour is wellrepresented in this version, as are the themes that made the novel so memorable in its day and ever since.
Where this version lacked was in the special features department — there are none. I would have hoped for something in a re-released version, whether in the form of interviews with surviving cast members or a look back at the challenges faced by Britain’s poorer classes in the 1830s when the book was published.