In the Name of Ben Hur

I feel that this film is more "Ivanhoe" than a biblical epic. The Romans are mostly depicted as arrogant and selfish. As a film for a mature audience I think this film leaves much to be desired. It is more like an adventure film. Children, however, may therefore find it both exciting and thrilling. The characters are either good or bad, only a few shades of gray, which is important for a kiddie audience.

The film was reminiscent of a low-budget TV film.

The plot of a young warrior learning the trade from an older warrior has been borrowed from lots of earlier films. The premise that a warrior assembles an uneven bunch of amateur fighters to defeat a superior enemy has also been shown in films many times in the past.

One of the worst movies i have ever seen. Well not even sure you can call it a movie it is so bad. Everything about this film is bad. The story is unbelievable, to think a few untrained farmers could defeat trained Roman soldiers and ex-Gladiators is ridiculous. None of the characters looked like they could fight their way out of a paper bag. Could the Romans really only muster half a dozen soldiers in badly fitted Armour, that were so easily defeated by a man with a staff?

The direction is awful and the costumes a joke, (Peter Ormond looked like he was in badly fitted fancy dress.) Jonno Davies ran around like a little boy so out of his depth and really badly cast. It is hard to find any good acting in this movie, but Alan Calton stood out as better than the film itself.

I watched it to the end in the hope that it might get better but it gets worse the more it progresses to the final silly ending.

At times I thought maybe this was a spoof comedy, but on reading the DVD cover discovered it was suppose to be an action film.

I enjoyed watching this movie. It's a decent option for when you need to switch off. It is easy to watch and nice scenic shots.

It's not a remake of the original 'In the name of Ben-Hur'. It's more a continuation of the story.

It's a story worth telling and this film takes a different approach than the original at telling it. It is a budget movie so bear that in mind when watching it. The production quality obviously cannot be compared to the big budget version, but is good for a low budget film.

Lucia (played by Lara Heller) and Cassius (played by Michael Bott) were well-delivered characters.

It is that I want to save 1 star for later but this is a good candidate. what is worse I ask my self, the acting the lower then low scenery I can not choose. Where the money for this film went. Not in the Cast not in the casting not in the pure film quality and it goes on and on even the fake blood looks fake. I can not think of any reason why this film was made with this name it is an insult to the real Ben Hur movie with John Charles Carter aka Charlton Heston. And then for last really the beginning looks very bad and it gets worse and worse, bad acting by nobody's. So do not spent any time on this movie. Just a tip: So many others movies to enjoy even in this genre, like The Eagle or similar movies.

With the risible Hollywood remake of BEN HUR stinking up cinemas recently, it's good to keep an open mind and look at this movie in context. Made for a fraction of the cost of the Jack Huston - Morgan Freeman version, there's a lot to like here.

Lara Heller's Lucia and Alan Carlton's Cyprian stood out for me and I would be interested in searching out other films they've been in.

Not aware of Asylum's previous titles, which I notice a lot of the other reviews criticize. Maybe bad experiences in the past has meant other viewers have gone in expecting bad things and looking for them. I don't know. I, for one, enjoy this period in film.