Comparing this film to its 1959 version would be a disservice. Based more faithfully upon the original novel, it features an excellent performance by Toby Kebbell and a competent one from Jack Huston, now brothers rather than just good childhood friends. This a story about forgiveness and redemption, and it requires from the viewer to enjoy it as such. Visually, it holds up with many practical shots, excellent photography and little CGI, a welcome change for that matter. The editing is a little bit choppy, sadly keeping in with the latest trends. Well, I really hope that it gets at least its budget back, because this summer has been brutal with most films at the B.O. Hope to enjoy it again on Netflix soon.

I'm not sure if my criticism is for the original novel (which I haven't read), or for the Burnett and Downey production, but this movie frustrated me. My initial reaction was to ask, "Why are the film makers willing to spend lots of money putting together these extravagant spectacles but don't bother to hire writers, or, at least, consultants, who have a clue about history or the Bible. This movie understands neither the Roman occupation of Israel, the piety of the Jews of 1st century Jerusalem, nor the nature of the life of the historical Jesus, an itinerate teacher who visited Jerusalem for the appropriate Jewish festivals but probably never set up shop as a carpenter, in either Jerusalem or his native Galilee, and especially not once his ministry began (following his baptism and desert temptation). " So, my suggestion is, if you want to tell a story of a "prince of the Jews" who discovers the gospel of Jesus in a Roman occupied world, make sure your writers know at least a little bit about all three of those historical situations. I give this movie a 5 (meh) out of 10.

Wow, I was pleasantly surprised by how good this was.

A new interpretation of the classic Lew Wallace novel, Ben-Hur is an epic tale of adventure. Two adopted brothers become bitter rivals when one joins the Roman army and is tasked with rooting out rebels in Jerusalem, leading him to sentence his brother to the life of a slave when he’s discovered to have harbored a would-be rebel assassin. The performances are pretty good and the production values are extraordinarily well-done, creating an authentic look and feel for the time period. The special effects in particular do an incredible job at creating dynamic action sequences; such as the naval battles and chariot races. But the writing falls short and doesn’t take the time to develop the characters or the story all that well. Yet despite its shortcomings, Ben-Hur is an entertaining film with a powerful message about forgiveness and letting go of hate.

Don´t compare it to the classic one. Don´t look for something historical. Take it for what it is: your typical Hollywood blockbuster.

An entertaining movie with times it forgets that it's in Roman time, jeans on a Roman.

I have never seen the 1959 version all the way through... I fell asleep both times I tried to watch it. Thankfully, I did not fall asleep during this supposedly 'inferior' remake. Obviously I can't compare it to the earlier versions (I have never seen the 1920's original) but I quite enjoyed this one. Not a perfect film but the chariot race was spectacular and the Christian message was sensitively handled. Worth a watch, particularly at Easter which is when I settled down to watch it.

I expected something more from this one. Through the whole movie I had a feeling it had a low budget. There was the feeling that it lacks something. Not disapointed, but not amazed either.

Awful film. It was like a bad made-for-TV film. Extremely wooden acting with no conviction or feeling. Avoid.

a great movie folks, its a must see

I turned it off in the half because I don't like to waste my time. And this one is definitely a waste of time. I don't even uderstand why movies like these are being filmed. Waste of money and everything. I'm giving 5 because there are even worse movies but really if your time is expensive, avoid watching this one.

High quality editing and set design, but there is no basis in history. If you have already started to do big-budget movie, you have to consult with historians to be historically accurate. It's the biggest criticism of the film, otherwise acting and the rest is for 5.5.

Remaking Ben-Hur? Now that's the studious first big mistake, and the payoff shows.

Oh and I haven't seen the original movie, so...there's another reason to dislike me.