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.
Add a Review
-
michaelhills11 September 2011
-
filipemanuelneto1 March 2017Some 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.
-
ma-cortes19 April 2014This Television monumental version of 180 min and 2 parts about the renowned story during the time of Christ which was filmed several times, concerning on a wealthy Jewish named Ben-Hur results to be an acceptable movie with huge production design and wonderful scenarios . Ben Hur tells the story of two childhood friends whose lives go in drastically different directions leading to an unforgivable betrayal and lifelong quest for vengeance . The story is well known , a rich Jewish nobleman Ben Hur (Joseph Morgan -The Vampire Diaries- in the title role) and his confrontation to military Messala (Stephen Campbell Moore, Season of the witch , Hunted), though they were childhood friends . When happen a distress , a tile falls during a Roman parade, Judah and his family are wrongfully accused and Ben Hur incurs the hostility his previous friend and is condemned to galley slavery , reduced to manning an oar ; then his family is sent to prison during several years and subsequently his mother and sister are banished as lepers . Judah Ben-Hur is wrongly accused of inciting a riot that endangered the life of Pontius Pilate (Hugh Bonneville, Downton Abbey). As a result, Judah's former best friend , and now up-and-coming Roman soldier Messala (Stephen Campbell , earlier performed by Stephen Boyd) condemns . When he's in a galleon as slave rower saves to Quinto Arrio (Ray Winstone , previously played by Jack Hawkins) who subsequently appointed him as a heir . Years later he goes back to seek revenge upon his Roman tormentor .As he returns Palestina where his mother Miriam and sister Tizrah (roles performed by Alex Kingston and Kristen Krouk , and formerly by Martha Scott and Cathy O'Donnell respectively) are prisoned at Antonia fortress . This culminates in a groundbreaking chariot race . The classic tale is added religious issues about Jesus life , as are described the pilgrimage , Mountain sermon , Passion , crucifixion and resurrection .
Lavishly produced by various countries , this miniseries does attempt to achieve television levels of epicness and by channeling HBO's Rome, this miniseries succeeds . Adequate main cast such as Joseph Morgan as the noble wrongfully punished and sent away to be a slave and Stephen Campbell as his friend and nemesis . Being a Britain/Spain co-production the film has an enjoyable cast formed by English actors as Joseph Morgan, Stephen Campbell Moore, Ray Winstone, Alex Kingston, Hugh Bonneville and Spanish players as Simon Andreu , Miguel Angel Muñoz and Lucia Jimenez .
This 3 hr 12 minutes recounting of this religion-infused revenge saga turns out to be a not-terrible way to spend time . However , it has some inappropriate sexual scenes and nudism which does not fit with clean and pure earlier versions . The Series achieved success , it is probably related to the fact that nearly the entire cast has been featured in popular TV shows this season . Though its aspirations are far more modest, I went in expecting Ben Hur to be similar to the recent History Channel miniseries, The Bible. I slogged through it because I still find a lot of the stories exciting . Most sets designed by Benjamin Fernandez -who made Gladiator- , a real research, and several months of labor were required for the film . Well staged battle ships made by computer generator and a breathtaking chariot races , being filmed in Valencia , Spain . The dialogue , colorful images , majestic set design , glamorous photography by Ousama Rawi , evocative musical score combine to cast an entertaining movie . Rousing soundtrack by Rob Lane who composes thrilling as well as sensitive melodies . The motion picture was compellingly realized by director Steven Shill who has directed many episodes of famous series such as ¨Shameless¨ , ¨Missing¨, ¨V¨, ¨Law and order¨, ¨Rome¨ , ¨The good wife¨, ¨Los Tudor¨ , ¨Criminal Minds¨ , ¨Soprano¨ , among others .
There are numerous renditions based on Lee Wallace's Ben Hur , as stage version , classic MGM's mammoth silent version ¨Ben Hur¨ (1926) by Fred Niblo with Ramon Novarro; and the remake Ben-Hur (1959) in which Stuntman Cliff Lyons worked as a stuntman/chariot driver in both Ben Hur (1925) and this 1959 retelling . Ben Hur is a big budget version by William Wyler that won a record of 11 Oscars and was the most expensive picture of its time , being one of the greatest movies of all history. Cartoon version (2003) by Bill Kowalchuk in which a prologue and epilogue narrated by Charlton Heston ; and this ¨Ben Hur TV series¨ (2010) by Steven Shill with Joseph Morgan as Judah Ben-Hur , Stephen Campbell Moore as Messala , Emily VanCamp as Esther as Kristin Kreuk as Tirzah , Ben Cross , Simón Andreu , Alex Kingston , James Faulkner , among others . -
Leofwine_draca14 January 2012Say 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? -
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.
-
CubsandCulture11 November 2018I am a huge fan of the 1959 film so I thought I would give a the miniseries a go. Throughout most of its run time it is a engaging retelling of the tale that focuses more on the political machinations that Ben-Hur (could have) does (done) especially in terms of the Roman court. Add in a lot more sexuality and less grand more earthly production values and the resulting adaptation plays like an engaging Game of Thrones episode while Christ story, more human and less religious, plays in the background. It is all very good fun. I especially like how Judah's time in Rome is flesh-out more and how the Great Sea Battle was more tactical. The lower budget forced a lot of the choices to make the story more psychological and grittier but it's nice counterpoint to the 1959 classic.
There is, however, two areas of concern. First because the film greatly down plays the religious (divine) elements a huge part of the ending does not make much sense; I think it would be incomprehensible how a certain "cure" happens without seeing the 59' version first. It also annoyed me that Christ's "forgive them they know not what they do" is ripped from its context completely and it is thematically problematic to have Judah the recipient of that utterance. Second, Morgan is miscast; his sandy blond hair and blue eyes reminder you too much of Heston and make Judah seem even less Jewish than in the 59' version. After about 30 minutes you get use to it and Morgan becomes an engaging hero but it is initially very distracting.
The chariot race in this version is no where near as grand, but it is still very exciting and the stripped down more documentary feel to it gives it a neat visceral edge. I'm not sure why they didn't cut the number of horses down to 2 per chariot through. I think that would have fit the paired down more earthly tone of this version.
The 59' is the gold standard of this story. The 25' is more religious version. But 2010 is the political intrigue version. Good stuff -
cold_lazarou5 January 2012Well, 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. -
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.
-
jacqulinesnider19 April 2019I love/loved this version! The cast is perfect. They all did a good job. I think more nominations should have happened with this one for awards. Defiantly love this version most.
-
SnoopyStyle17 February 2016Judah Ben-Hur (Joseph Morgan) is a rich Jewish merchant in Jerusalem. He, his sister Tirzah (Kristin Kreuk) and Roman commander Messala (Stephen Campbell Moore) were childhood friends. Ambitious Messala returns from Rome pushing Judah to inform on the Jewish revolt. He tries to stop the demonstration. He gets betrothed to Esther (Emily VanCamp). While the Governor of Judaea Pontius Pilate (Hugh Bonneville) marches in, a tile falls onto him and starts a riot. Messala is demoted. Judah is sent into slavery and encounters Jesus Christ on his way to the crucification. He is pressed into rowing a gallery where he rescues Roman admiral Quintus Arrius (Ray Winstone) after a battle. Arrius adopts him naming him after his dead son Sextus Arrius. He returns to avenge Tirzah and his mother Ruth (Alex Kingston).
This is a solid TV mini-series. There are some great actors. The younger leads are mostly TV stars. Joseph Morgan has more youth but not quite the presence of Charlton Heston. The big action is compensated by the modern CGI. The gallery scene works well. The chariot scene is less epic. I like some of the early exposition laying out the political situation. This series may not be necessarily but it is an interesting addition to the '59 classic. -
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. -
dbdumonteil7 July 2012The 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. -
Skynet-TX29 April 2012The 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! -
first impressive thing is the ambition to create a new adaptation to a classic book. than to look the best way to be more than a great movie remake.and not the last, to have success. result - an adaptation for new generations. not original but good. interesting, giving new nuances - Stephen Campbell Moore does a real seductive Messala, more credible than in 1959 version, Ben Cross is a realistic Tiberius and Joseph Morgan is far to be another Charlton Heston. but the last fact could be a virtue because it is Ben Hur of a new time, part of a chain of blockbusters who use the Greek- Roman mythology and histories.so, a good film. for script, cast but, more important, for science to present a story in right nuances. and that fact is important.
-
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.
-
Vital scenes eg. The marine battle and others were missing altogether.
Poor production compared to the classic Charlton Heston version. -
Kirpianuscus3 May 2017if 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.