Filipe Neto 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.

northstarfalling Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is within the top 20 to top 10 best selling books of all time. I was very disappointed that the makers of this series did not have enough respect for a book of that magnitude to even attempt to be accurate. I could rant for a long time about inaccurate this series was, but I will just keep it to some basic info to help prevent people from being disappointed like I was.I will first say that if you do not care about the actual story of Ben-Hur, that the production was pretty good, and you might enjoy this series. If I could block everything from my memory of the book, than I probably would have enjoyed this also.I think the screenwriter skipped reading the book in high school and just read the Cliff Notes instead, and then wrote the script for this about 40 years later off of whatever they still remembered. That might explain the level of inaccuracy. That is all the ranting I will do. For those that read the book this is literally all they got right: a guy named Ben-Hur gets betrayed by his friend, and becomes a slave then saves a roman officer who adopts him, and then Ben-Hur vows revenge and that cumulates into a chariot race. Everything else is totally botched. Also, aside from storyline, none of actors from the Hur family look anything like a Jew, and only one actor (Kristin Kreuk--Tirzah) even attempts an accent.This gets one star because as I said, the production was good, but the acting could have been a lot better, and you just cannot botch a book like Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ that badly and expect anything more.

Skynet-TX The first and the biggest mistake of this movie that at some scenes the makers thought that Ben-Hur was Spartacus. He was not. Spartacus is a different movie and has nothing to do with the Ben-Hur story. 1. The scene from Spartacus (when the Thracian tries to kill the Caesar instead of Judah) should not be shown here. 2. Judah was not a Gladiator. He was a racing driver. 3. Quintus Arrius haven't died before Judah went back to Israel since in the original movie he sent his ring back to him. 4. We don't care about the childhood of Judah and Messala. We know that they were the best friends and that's it. 5. On the galley Judah was not number 40 but number 41. 6. He did not tell his name to Quintus after three days of saving him, but Quintus asked his name right after. 7. We don't know the name of Quintus' son. We only know that he had a son. 8. Galley-slaves did not tell anything to their prisoners about shipping. 9. It's not Judah who caught sight of the other ship at the battle but someone behind him. 10. First he was chained to the ship and Quintus asked to prisoner to take the chains of before the battle.There are many more mistakes in the movie but I think this many is more than enough to make your own decision about it. My suggestion: avoid!

Glen McCulla Well, this little thing certainly caught me by surprise when it cropped up on British TV recently: i was completely unaware of this remake-of-a-remake (with a third version of "The Thing" playing in cinemas at the moment, it seems to be the in-thing these days...).And yet i was not as let down as i expected to be. Despite the flaws of an obvious television budget - although stretching to some very picturesque location cinematography - the well worn story of Judah Ben-Hur is related and realised in an accessible and enjoyable fashion. Featuring a cast very familiar to viewers of sci-fi and fantasy - Alex Kingston (Doctor Who), Kristin Kreuk (Smallville), Ben Cross (Star Trek), and Ray Winstone (err.. Robin of Sherwood? I may be stretching a point here) - we are treated to a small-screen epic of Roman intrigue, family infighting, and brother against brother in the ancient world. Of course, some of the most famous setpieces of the famous Heston movie are recreated, some done very well such as the naval battle at sea, some not - like the epic chariot race reduced to a glorified Go-Kart chase around a dirt track.So some of the grandeur and pomp is missing, but the heart of the original story is still here. Unfortunately, the actor portraying Messala lacks the charismatic evil of Stephen Boyd, coming across at times like a thuggish Roman skinhead. Thankfully, however, our Ben-Hur is no Heston, and actually imparts some emotion into the role instead of macho and mannequinish posturing. It's sad to see that the homoerotic subtext that film screenwriter Gore Vidal imparted into the relationship between the two protagonists was not recreated: if Vidal could smuggle it unsuspected past Heston in the '50s, then surely it could have gotten by the network censors today?In any event, this was a thoroughly enjoyable romp through an oft-told tale. One can only hope that this story can be left in peace for a while now. Oh, and one more thing: i would've thought they'd cast a more charismatic actor as Jesus. I had trouble thinking anyone would follow this bloke into the pub,never mind the Kingdom of Heaven.