This article contains spoilers for both the 1959 together with 2016 Ben-Hur movies. Yesterday, cinema critic together with reporter Joh...
This article contains spoilers for both the 1959 together with 2016 Ben-Hur movies.
Yesterday, cinema critic together with reporter John Campea uploaded his review of this week's Ben-Hur remake to his self-titled YouTube channel. Intrigued to run across how the cinema was faring amongst critics, I was 1 of the many who clicked on the review together with was left after puzzled.
Campea had about positive remarks for the Ben-Hur remake, but ultimately gave the cinema a negative review largely due to how it ended. The critic took effect amongst how the sis together with woman bring upwards of principal protagonist Judah Ben-Hur -- Miriam together with Tirzah -- were miraculously cured of their leprosy after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, especially every bit he claimed that this did non hand off inward the 1959 Ben-Hur flick (the most famous of this story's many adaptations).
This was at 1 time confusing to me every bit having watched the Charlton Heston Ben-Hur flick alone concluding year, I recollect quite clearly that this did indeed hand off inward that adaptation of the story, piece Jesus cured the 2 women inward a similar fashion inward Lew Wallace's master copy new from 1880. I wasn't the alone 1 to recall this item of the iconic story, together with shortly the comments department of the review was filling upwards amongst people pointing out Campea's error.
What was most confusing to me well-nigh this province of affairs was that throughout his review Campea spoke every bit someone who had seen the 1959 cinematic landmark, at 1 signal fifty-fifty imploring his viewers to attempt it out themselves if they haven't already. Yet if he had truly seen the 3 together with a one-half hr epic, wouldn't he cause got remembered 1 of the most pivotal scenes inward its closing act?
The alone other selection is that Campea saw the cinema therefore long agone that he had forgotten how it ended, but I don't believe that excuses this behaviour.
If he was pretending he had seen the master copy cinema inward guild to boost the credibility of his sentiment on the matter, together with therefore that is real deceitful of him. If he hadn't seen the cinema inward therefore long that he'd forgotten how it ended, he should cause got refreshed his retentiveness either past times watching it 1 time again or past times only reading through the Wikipedia plot synopsis, earlier using a non-existent modify every bit a major criticism of the remake. The fact he chose non to I experience was inexcusably lazy for 1 of YouTube's most prominent cinema critics.
Whatever the reality of the situation, the review has since been taken downward which seems to advise Campea is aware of the error he made.
This video frustrated me personally every bit it was such a large error that was therefore easily avoidable, together with it's a form of sloppiness that would alone endure deemed excusable on YouTube. As much every bit I relish the thriving cinema criticism community on the video-sharing site, it is inward situations similar these where you lot run across quite vividly where it falters inward comparing to to a greater extent than traditional cinema reviews from outlets such every bit the Guardian or the BBC. Such major mistakes from paid cinema critics would non endure accepted on those sites, which makes me wonder why we're to a greater extent than willing to cause got them from paid cinema critics on YouTube?
This is non intended every bit an assail on John Campea, I'm certain he plant real difficult to create every bit much content every bit he can. I precisely experience that mistakes similar these shouldn't endure brushed off, every bit all they exercise is brand YouTube appear less credible than other cinema criticism sites, together with that could crusade long-term problems.
COMMENTS