Ben Hur

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.

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.

I love/loved this version! The cast is perfect. They all did a good job. I think more nominations should have happened with this one for awards. Defiantly love this version most.

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 a huge fan of the 1959 film so I thought I would give a the miniseries a go. Throughout most of its run time it is a engaging retelling of the tale that focuses more on the political machinations that Ben-Hur (could have) does (done) especially in terms of the Roman court. Add in a lot more sexuality and less grand more earthly production values and the resulting adaptation plays like an engaging Game of Thrones episode while Christ story, more human and less religious, plays in the background. It is all very good fun. I especially like how Judah's time in Rome is flesh-out more and how the Great Sea Battle was more tactical. The lower budget forced a lot of the choices to make the story more psychological and grittier but it's nice counterpoint to the 1959 classic.

There is, however, two areas of concern. First because the film greatly down plays the religious (divine) elements a huge part of the ending does not make much sense; I think it would be incomprehensible how a certain "cure" happens without seeing the 59' version first. It also annoyed me that Christ's "forgive them they know not what they do" is ripped from its context completely and it is thematically problematic to have Judah the recipient of that utterance. Second, Morgan is miscast; his sandy blond hair and blue eyes reminder you too much of Heston and make Judah seem even less Jewish than in the 59' version. After about 30 minutes you get use to it and Morgan becomes an engaging hero but it is initially very distracting.

The chariot race in this version is no where near as grand, but it is still very exciting and the stripped down more documentary feel to it gives it a neat visceral edge. I'm not sure why they didn't cut the number of horses down to 2 per chariot through. I think that would have fit the paired down more earthly tone of this version.

The 59' is the gold standard of this story. The 25' is more religious version. But 2010 is the political intrigue version. Good stuff