Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Was this yet another ratings sweep remake of a highly acclaimed film to con TV viewers into watching it at least once? Suffers from all the movie killer flaws that very nearly all "Made for TV" movies have, including cheap production values, mediocre acting, poor audio and visual special effects, mediocre script and dialog, bloat to fill alloted time slot(s), and erratic pacing for commercial break and episode split timing. Save your money, do NOT buy this! Save your time, don't watch it if they rerun it on TV. Wishing I hadn't wasted my time watching the first part. See the 1959 spectacular instead. It's INFINITELY better.

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.

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.

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.