northstarfalling 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.

dbdumonteil 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.

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.

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.