Ben-Hur

first impressive thing is the ambition to create a new adaptation to a classic book. than to look the best way to be more than a great movie remake.and not the last, to have success. result - an adaptation for new generations. not original but good. interesting, giving new nuances - Stephen Campbell Moore does a real seductive Messala, more credible than in 1959 version, Ben Cross is a realistic Tiberius and Joseph Morgan is far to be another Charlton Heston. but the last fact could be a virtue because it is Ben Hur of a new time, part of a chain of blockbusters who use the Greek- Roman mythology and histories.so, a good film. for script, cast but, more important, for science to present a story in right nuances. and that fact is important.

Some movies are so good that they leave no room for eventual remakes. Even so, there are attempts. This is a movie intended for TV and that plays the story of Lew Wallace on the revenge of Judah Ben-Hur. The plot is too well known, so I will not talk about it. The film has a naturally lower budget than its predecessor of 1959 and puts entirely aside any epic ambition, to the detriment of a close reading of historical truth. So we don't have a grandiose scenario or thousands of extras, but a very realistic scenario with some ambitions of historical truth and very similar to what we could see in the Middle East during the life of Jesus. It's evident the influence that "Ben-Hur" (1959), "The Passion of the Christ" or the TV series "Rome" had in the building of the scenarios and environments. The visual and special effects are quite realistic but manage to be discreet enough for the audience to keep their attention on the plot. Joseph Morgan was a very satisfying Ben-Hur and has good chemistry with Emily VanCamp and Lucía Jiménez. Stephen Campbell Moore and Ben Cross also don't disappoint. Overall, the cast was OK. To summarize: without having the ambition of a cinema masterpiece, this is a good TV movie, divided into two parts that, together, would have approximately three hours long. It's not an epic, but it never had that ambition. It's a movie for entertainment and it works well if we watch in that light.

I am only an hour into this version of Ben Hur - I love the 1959 version and must have seen it dozens of times. I never thought that it could be done as engagingly again. I think that Wyler's version might have benefited from a closer attention to the young Judah and Messala's relationship at the beginning as this TV version does, though briefly. I was a little disappointed with the casting of Judah Ben Hur - he does not have the masculinity of Charlton Heston - but Stephen Campell Moore as Messala is really good if not quite as evil as Stephen Boyd's young roman in 1959. This version works very well so far and has brought an interesting insight into Messala's motivations. He is not all bad as he was in Wyler's film.

The 1959 version of "Ben-Hur" is without a doubt one of the truly great motion picture epics, so it was with surprise, and dismay, that I saw this 2010 re-make mini series appear on my local TV channel, and against my better judgment started to watch, what could only be, this travesty. To my surprise I found within 30 minutes I was totally hooked and engrossed by a deeply touching and superior Television experience. What it lacks in sheer magnificence of the 1959 version, it more than makes up in the human story of a family torn apart by terrible misfortune and fate. Wisely the makers chose a superb young cast in the leads, with Joseph Morgan (as Ben-Hur) and Stephen Campbell Moore (as Messala) not only doing justice to these epic characters but imbuing them with true human emotions. The story is very much the same as the original, and even though it was said the makers played down the religious aspect, I personally found that by doing this they actually heightened it in some respects to truly wonderful effect, especially during the last hour of the story which left this viewer with more than a few tears in his eyes. Naturally the sexual aspect is more explicit, but if one watches the original 1925 silent version you realize that is is something which has always been there but left and only implied in the 1959 version. The famous chariot race of the 1959 version can never be duplicated and the film makers obviously did not have the budget or tried to do so, but apart from that, if you have the opportunity to see this version, do yourself a favor and do so. I think, like me, you will be pleasantly surprised.

Say BEN HUR and people immediately think of the Charlton Heston Hollywood epic: a film full of elaborate sets, huge crowds and epic chariot races. The powers that be decided time was ripe for a new version of the story, albeit in miniseries form, and no doubt to take advantage of the new-found popularity of the historical miniseries after the success of HBO'S ROME.

I for one am a huge fan of such stuff, so I was immediately predisposed to enjoy this outing. I was engaged from the outset: to my shame, I haven't yet seen the Heston film, so watching the story play out was a fresh and involving experience. The total running time is around three hours, and I didn't find that a single moment dragged.

As with many of these productions, the cast is packed with familiar faces. Ben Cross, Alex Kingston, Marc Warren, Art Malik and in particular Ray Winstone all seem to be having a ball with the roles they're provided. Stephen Campbell Moore, as the youthful hero, is sufficiently just, upstanding and likable enough, and watch out for a trio of highly attractive female cast members who ease the viewing experience: Emily Van Camp, Kristin Kreuk and, particularly, Lucia Jimenez.

The budget is high enough for them to film in authentic, sun-drenched locales, with copious use of sets and extras to build a realistic portrait of the times. The use of CGI (such as in the naval battle sequence) is certainly adequate and the final chariot race doesn't disappoint. It's no ROME, but then, what is?