PlatinumRead Just so...so bad

Steineded How sad is this?

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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.

beresfordjd 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.

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?

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.