Simply Perfect

Please don't spend money on this.

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

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.

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.

The main problem with these mini miniseries (2 episodes) is that the screenwriters forgot that the novel was subtitled " a tale of the Christ";and all that concerns Jesus is botched ;Wyler never showed his face and all his appearances in the 1959 version were memorable ,particularly when he gives some water to Ben Hur en route to the galleys.The first part of Lewis Wallace's- who said he was influenced by French writer Alexandre Dumas and his "Comte De Monte Cristo"- novel was entirely devoted to the Magi and the nativity.Ben Hur and Messala only appear simultaneously on page 74 of my edition!One should also note that there's an episode,never transferred to the screen ,when Ben Hur tries to raise an army to fight Rome and to save Jesus.He gives up,on the Golgotha,because a divine invisible intervention tells him HE must die.Joseph Morgan,as an user has already pointed out by an user ,is too "Nordic" to be a convincing hero;Emily VanCamp as Esther is too gamine to compare favorably with Haya Harareet in the 1959 version.Nevertheless ,the story is catchy and entertaining,in spite of (or because of) the changes the script has undergone:Messala ,for instance,is (so to speak) still alive -like in the novel-when the Christ is crucified;characters not present ,either in the silent version or in Wyler's were introduced in a tale even more melodramatic than the original: a Greek slave/courtesan who is skilled in love making (There is a hot sex scene between her and a virgin(?)Ben Hur)and in "special" beverages-perhaps an equivalent of Wallace's perfidious Iras;and a treacherous Jew named David,in love with Esther ;the valley of the lepers is ,if we are to believe the screenwriters,a safe place ,as we see Esther bringing bread to the unfortunate sick outcasts ;in Wyler 's version ,she kept her distance ,at least in her first visits.(in the book ,it's a servant who feeds the poor women and takes them to the Christ)The political side,on the other hand ,is more detailed in the MTV work in the first sequences ,and Messala's attitude makes more sense after the tile incident (caused by the hero,like in the book,not by his sister).By the way,the mother,Miriam (no name in the book)has become Ruth,we can wonder why.And in the end,the death of Messala is more human than in the 1959 movie or in the book ,in which the character works behind the scenes:he and Ben Hur do not have any conversation when they meet again.Save it for a rainy day:it's no masterpiece,and the chariot race seems cheap ,but the subplots are numerous,the hints at Juda/Messala childhood are relevant and the supporting cast is up to scratch,with Ray Winstone,the stand out.Best scene:the suicide of Arius in his bath ,as the water turns red.

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.