Ben-Hur

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.

Judah 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.

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.

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.

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.