Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Kirpianuscus if you ignore the parallel with the adaptation from 1959. because it is different. for the accent on ordinary people situation. beautiful cinematography, decent acting. and new nuances of a story who seems be well known but who becomes more seductive from a specific angle. because it tries to be different. not only for escape from comparisons but for the desire to give a nuanced message. not religious in significant measure. but interesting. and, maybe, useful for a new public.

Leofwine_draca 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?

phd_travel For people who loved the 1959 Charlton Heston version, no one could possibly expect any remake to match the original and it doesn't try to. This 2010 TV version is interesting for contrast and to look a the differences between them. It actually makes one appreciate the 1959 version more for how well done it was. After watching it, I read up about the 1959 version and found out that the 1959 story was actually different plot wise from the novel. The screenwriters made the story much more dramatic and enjoyable with priceless dialog. This 2010 TV version is probably more true to the novel. Firstly the good points. The costumes, sets and filming in Morocco are well done - it doesn't feel cheap. There are a lot more characters and I guess it is more realistic. The minus points. There is some terrible casting. The actor who played Messala, Stephen Moore is quite nondescript and forgettable. Compared with Stephen Boyd he is so much less charismatic. Ben Hur is played by Joseph Morgan who is just too North European looking. If they were going for a more realistic version why not try a bit more of a Mediterranean look. Emily Van Camp as Esther just looks puffy and daft. No romance or chemistry here. Kristin Kreuk as Ben's sister Tirzah surprisingly looks quite suitable even though she is pan Asian. Alex Kingston as Ben's mother Ruth was a mistake. A lot of supporting cast are badly cast too. The actor who played Quintas Arrias is terribly un Roman looking. All the strong regional British accents are just out of place. Couldn't they tried to have some what of a Middle Eastern accent? It was like a British high school production. Some scenes like Messala's death are just so much worse than in the 1959 version. While the galley scenes were quite OK, the chariot race was pretty lame - more like a county fair dog race. I know the budget was probably smallish but still its such a let down. Overall for Ben Hur fans its worth a watch for contrast and differences but be prepared to cringe a lot. Hope this isn't the first version of Ben Hur anyone sees. Compared to the recent unnecessary remakes of perfect Hollywood classics like South Pacific with Glenn Close, Roman Holiday with Catherine Oxenberg, this at least has some effort but its still pretty barfarific.

michaelhills 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.