Watch it at Amazon
26 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :- 'Silent' Ben-Hur Also Has A Lot To Offer, 5 April 2006 Author: ccthemovieman-1 from Lockport, NY, United States
After seeing the famous 1959 version of this film a number of times in the last 45 years, it was interesting to contrast this 1925 silent version to it. However, let me say right off the bat that I enjoyed both versions, and I am not going to get into the "which movie is better?" argument.This silent-film version was more true to the book than the more-famous 1959 movie, mainly from the Christian angle. Just look at the main title and notice "A Tale Of The Christ" was dropped for the '59 film even though that is the official title and the name of Lew Wallace's book. In this film, the life of Christ is much more prominent, and that's the major difference. Both films feature a cast of thousands, the great sea battle and the dramatic chariot race. We have the intense and bitter rivalry between Judah Ben-Hur and Messala, capped off by the chariot race. To compare action scenes would be unfair since cameras and technical knowledge improve with time. Both versions wowed audiences in their day. The chariot race in the '59 version is still considered by some the great action scene ever filmed, especially since it was done without special effects.Unlike the '59 movie, this silent version had TWO big stars in the leads: Ramon Narvarro and Francis X. Bushman, playing Ben-Hur and Messala, respectively. It also has an interesting mix of (mostly) black-and-white and tinted scenes. All the scenes involving Jesus had color. As in the '59 version, you never saw Christ's face.Both had touching scenes with Ben-Hur and his sister and his mother. Speaking of women, a shocker in this silent version was a quick parade of topless women. At 2 hours and 25 minutes this Ben-Hur was shorter than the '59 version. However, this is a long, long movie for a silent film and many people today probably wouldn't put up with no dialog for that long, but if you appreciate great film-making - from any era - this is a "must" for your collection.
23 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :- A Blockbuster Even After 75 Years, 8 November 1999 Author: gbheron from Washington, DC
The 2 1/2 hour running time just zips by in a flash, and the viewer actually forgets that they are watching a silent film. It's that good. The naval battle and the chariot race are so realistic you marvel at what filmmakers could do 75 years ago with a big budget in the hands of craftsmen. The acting is very good although the "silent" style seems a little over-acted today. I can't recommend this enough as a rental. Let's not forget our wonderful silent classics.
20 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :- Absolute Silent-Movie MASTERPIECE!!!, 31 July 2004 Author: Marcin Kukuczka from Cieszyn, Poland
Anyone who is interested in the history of cinema must have heard of the version of 1959 which got so many Oscars. Yes, indeed, William Wyler's BEN HUR (1959) is a masterpiece. This is the version that I have watched for many years not being aware much of the 1925 version. I had only heard about this movie from my Grandma who watched it in the 1930s and absolutely loved it. I somehow underestimated it considering this movie too old and out-of-date. However, when I watched it for the first time last year, I did realize that this silent movie is an utmost masterpiece for its era. AS IMPRESSIVE AS THE 1959 VERSION! There are a lot of factors that make this movie worth watching at least once.The cinematography is of very high quality. I dare claim that some scenes are equally well shot as the ones in the 1959 version. The sea battle when Juda Ben Hur is in the galleys, the tile falling on the Roman governor, the meeting of Judah and Messala and their quarrel are still memorably presented. As far as the chariot race is concerned, the scene is gorgeous as for the silent era: these crowds of people, the decorations, everything is filled with splendor!The cast give very fine performances. Novarro as Juda Ben Hur is, in my opinion, not better than Heston, but indeed not worse. Francis X. Bushman with his facial expressions, his Roman nose really fits to the role of Messala. May Mc Avoy as Esther is not as good as Haya Harareet in 1959 version. There, Haya looks more like a Jew, she is more gentle and beautiful. However, May's portrayal of Esther, though different, is also worth consideration. The figures of Quintus Arrius and Balthazar are not very developed here. Nevertheless, all other characters do appear like in BEN HUR (1959), and they perform really well.The moments with Jesus Christ from this movie and from the one of 1959 are VERY SIMILAR! SOMETIMES EVEN IDENTICAL! In both movies, we can't see Jesus' face. He is portrayed as a Messiah, powerful and calm. In this 1925 version, you can see Christ's figure full of divine light and most these scenes are shot in early Technicolor. What is more, this film stresses clearly the expectations that Jews had concerning Christ. Juda Ben Hur gathers legions to be led by the divine king. The final scene is a bit different but equally touching as in the 1959 version:"Weeping may endure for a night, but in the morning cometh JOY" (strikingly similar to SOLOMON AND SHEBA (1959)All in all, this film is an unforgettable experience. For me, it is something that I could only dream about to realize how perfectly they could make a movie in 1925. ABSOLUTE MASTERPIECE OF SILENT MOVIES which can't be skipped in my film gallery...
21 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :- Silent Film Making at It's Best, 21 June 2000 Author: Brian J. Smith from Gloucester, Ontario, Canada
The 1925 version of Ben-Hur is an outstanding example of silent film making at it's best. With the proverbial cast of thousands, it compares favorably with it's more expensive and lavish 1959 remake. Had the Academy Awards been given out at this time, Ben-Hur would undoubtedly have won it's share.The video version that I saw was restored to it's original splendor complete with tints and two color technicolor sequences, They are quite spectacular and hold up quite well today. The birth of Christ sequence is most memorable.The flagship sequences, the sea battle and the chariot race, are expertly staged and remain the most exciting parts of the picture. They are as good as those in the 1959 version.The casting is, for the most part, excellent. Ramon Navarro as Judah and Francis X. Bushman as Messala stand out. The only problem is the casting of May McEvoy as Esther. With her blond hair, blue eyes and riglets, she looks more like a Mary Pickford want to be than a Jewish slave girl.Despite all of it's well documented production problems, Ben-Hur still is one of the best movies of all time, silent or sound.
20 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :- Spectacular Silent Version of Wallace Classic!, 9 November 2004 Author: Ben Burgraff (cariart) from Las Vegas, Nevada
With the record number of Oscars won by the William Wyler 1959 version of BEN-HUR, there is a tendency to overlook the monumental 1925 production, which established MGM as a studio to be reckoned with. Well, if you've never seen the earlier version, you may be in for a surprise...it is superior in nearly every way!Certainly, some of the performances (particularly Francis X. Bushman's scenery-chewing Messala) are cartoonish, the film lacks the widescreen splendor and scope of it's successor, and the 'Wyler Touch', the infinite care the legendary director poured over every detail, is sorely missed. But there is an energy and sense of intimacy in Fred Niblo's version that is sorely lacking in the later version; the film, as a whole, is far closer in spirit to General Lew Wallace's novel; and young leading man Ramon Novarro (with a sexy intensity reminiscent of Tyrone Power), makes a far more charismatic and sympathetic Ben-Hur than Charlton Heston.The 1959 version is remembered today almost exclusively for the chariot race, one of the most spectacular action sequences ever filmed. But what of the other 'set piece', the gigantic sea battle between the Roman and pirate fleets? The scene is completely artificial, obviously comprised of models and rear projections (watch the toy seamen jiggle as ships collide!) The 1925 version's chariot race is equally as exciting, and the sea battle used full-sized ships and hundreds of extras (shot in Italy, where a fire broke out on the ships during the shooting...the extras' panic on screen was NOT acting!) With two-strip Technicolor to emphasize key scenes (the Nativity, the new Roman Consul's arrival in Jerusalem...yes, those ARE topless women leading the procession!), and a wonderful, stirring new musical score by Carl Davis, Fred Niblo's BEN-HUR is a treasure, a film you'll want to see again and again...Can you honestly say THAT about the '59 version?
12 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :- An Entertaining & Often Impressive Version of the Story, 23 September 2004 Author: Snow Leopard from Ohio
While it is now largely neglected in favor of the more familiar 1959 remake, the 1925 silent version of "Ben-Hur" is quite entertaining, and it is often impressive in its own right. Fred Niblo had a lot of good resources for this film, and he used them well. Although Niblo made some other enjoyable films, this one has to be by far his best. As Ben-Hur and Messala, Ramon Novarro and Francis X. Bushman work pretty well as the rivals whose complex relationship drives so much of the action. At an hour shorter than the 1950's version, this one moves at a good pace while keeping most of the best material.The story lends itself easily to a large-scale production. The characters, the historical settings, and the themes all offer many possibilities to film-makers. The screenplay for this version does a good job of focusing on the parts of the story that are interesting to watch while also developing the story's key relationships and themes. Like the later version, it makes some changes from the novel, but it still contains most of the same best-known scenes.The large-scale set piece sequences from the story work very well here. The naval battle sequence actually seems more realistic here than it is in the color and sound version. The chariot race scene is approached a little differently than it is in Wyler's version, so that direct comparisons may not be possible, but in any case Niblo's version is very good. The action is tense and exciting, and it is also fun to try to pick out the silent screen stars who appear in the audience.There are certainly a number of reasons for the enduring popularity of the Wyler/Charlton Heston version. Fortunately, there is no need to choose one over the other. This adaptation of "Ben-Hur" deserves to be remembered in its own right, as a successful, entertaining movie that also captures the important ideas of the story.
11 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :- Silent Film Masterpiece, 10 January 2000 Author: Ron Oliver (revilorest@juno.com) from Forest Ranch, CA
Subtitled "A Tale of the Christ", this mixture of piety & adventure was MGM's grandest silent picture. The story tells how a Hebrew prince defies his Roman masters by beating them at their own game, literally, while becoming increasingly aware that the young Carpenter he met in Nazareth is the very Son of God and how that knowledge changes his life.Years in the making, with filming in Italy & California, and changes of script and leading man, BEN HUR could have been a disaster. Instead, it was a complete triumph, with the naval battle and chariot race scenes holding their own among the best ever filmed. This film should not be compared with the Heston remake; it stands completely on its own merits.For decades, the only known prints of this film were 90 minutes long, in black & white. By great good fortune, in the 1980's an uncut version, over 2 hours and with the original tints and Technicolor scenes was discovered in Czechoslovakia. This is what we are able to enjoy today.Ramon Novarro got the plum male role of the entire silent period . He was a very fine actor and is excellent as Ben Hur. Sadly, the rest of his film career, in which he was typecast in every sort of ethnic role, from Chinese to Polynesian to Arab to Navajo, is virtually forgotten today.
8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :- Captivating silent epic, 5 June 2008 Author: AdnanZ
This much lesser-known version of the Ben-Hur story from 1925 was the most expensive silent film ever made and benefits greatly from MGM's ability at the time to make films that looked amazingly grand and epic and still somehow manage to today. Even after seeing William Wyler's 1959 version and even with the advancements of modern CGI, the 83 year old "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ" still looks unbelievably impressive with its massive sets and thousands of extras.The mythos that has surrounded "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ" among film buffs over the years has reached a status almost as grand as the film itself. The deaths, bribes, and other stories surrounding the movie and in particular the famous chariot race sequence do nothing to detract from the film (although they do distract one from it) but instead increase one's fascination with the production. I'm not sure if there are any comprehensive books written on the film but I must seek one out eventually.The story doesn't need to be discussed because everyone knows it. It's an entertaining story that's really quite hard to do wrong and this movie is more entertaining and exciting than any other version I've seen. The theatricality demanded from silent film enhances the nature and feel of the story.This film was directed by Fred Niblo, famous for the Douglas Fairbanks vehicles "The Mark of Zorro" and the inferior "The Three Musketeers" and also director of several memorable silent films such as Greta Garbo vehicles "The Temptress" and "The Mysterious Lady" as well as "The Red Lily", an absolutely brilliant film by 1924 standards that is sadly hard to get a hold of (except on Turner Classic Movies which shows it on occasion). Niblo lost his way in the sound era but is on top form here directing this massive production. Of course, the chariot race deserves all its fame and recognition and remains exciting, vibrant, and captivating to this day.The restoration on the DVD released in the four-DVD set released in celebration of the 1959 film is spectacular as usual from the Turner team with the original (and well-chosen) tints and the exceptional Technicolor sequences restored. The film is in the public domain so I expect there must be some form of cheap black & white only copy which I urge anybody reading this to avoid watching. Another reason to watch this restored version is the terrific score by Carl Davis performed by the London Philharmonic orchestra.As good as William Wyler and Charlton Heston are, I'll take this Fred Niblo and Ramon Novarro over the 1959 version any day. A thrilling, captivating silent epic and one of the great silent American films. 9/10
8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :- Surprisingly wonderful, 24 December 2004 Author: David Lane from Winston-Salem, NC
Since I was so impressed the the 1959 version of this film, I figured there was no way I could watch this 1925 version and not be let down by it. Not only is this original adaptation very good, but it stands very strongly next to the heralded remake. In some regards, I enjoyed this adaptation better than the remake. Romon Navarro makes an excellent title character. The highlight of this film for me is early on when the star of Bethlehem is formed. Eye-popping visuals especially considering the time they were produced. It blows away any CGI we have today.The version I saw of this was the newly scored version by Carl Davis, who continues to impress me with his scores for silent films including those he has written for "Greed", "Safety Last", "The Crowd", "Intolerance", "The Phantom of the Opera", and "The Wind".
1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :- "Your past has come to life", 11 July 2009 Author: nora_nettlerash from Ruritania
Of all motion picture genres, the ancient world epic is the only one in which the silents were usually superior to their talking counterparts. With the emotional distance of a bygone age, the pompous dialogue, not to mention the focus on the spectacular, here, if ever there was one, is a type of story best told purely in images.The 1925 Ben-Hur is probably the finest of all the 1920s epics. A lot of this is down to its (uncredited) producer, "boy-wonder" Irving Thalberg. Although there is very little consistency in the genres or kinds of story in Thalberg's productions, his hallmark seems to be that he was willing to push the boat out creatively. He never just plumped for the most commercial option, yet never lost sight of what was entertaining. Hence his pictures were almost always hits, but they were never mere instant-appeal audience-fodder. He refused to compromise on quality in any department, and in Ben-Hur the editing of Lloyd Nosler and the cinematography in particular deserve honourable mentions. Thalberg had taken over the project half-way through shooting, and it's exemplary of his belief in quality over easy profits that he recast virtually ever actor, changed the crew and scrapped the old footage, sending the budget skyrocketing but ending up with a finer finished product.Among the replacement crew was director Fred Niblo. While there are a few other directors associated with this production, they shouldn't really be counted as most of their footage was ditched when Niblo was brought on board. And he is really perfectly suited to this material. His sense of movement and rhythm, especially in crowd scenes, is exceptional. A great example is in the leper cave, when Miriam and Tirzah exit away from camera, screen left, a leper crawls towards the water from screen right, echoing their movement. Niblo was also one of the best action directors of his era, as evidenced in the highly imaginative sequence of images in the sea battle. For the chariot race the emphasis is on speed, partly because Thalberg offered a $100 prize to the winner, but also because the camera rarely takes the position of a spectator, almost constantly moving with the chariots. The excitement is heightened because the camera cars occasionally move faster when behind a chariot or slower when in front of chariot, to give the effect of dollying in on the action.Niblo was also capable of coaxing tenderness and poignancy out of the smaller scenes. He recognises that the lavish sets and masses of extras can't be a continuous backdrop, and has the sense to stage the most important interactions in front of plain backgrounds, focusing us entirely on the actors. He brings an emotional depth to many sequences – something almost impossible to achieve in this kind of picture –by holding performers in uninterrupted takes and simply allowing them to emote with subtle gestures and facial expressions. The scene in which Miriam and Tirzah find Judah asleep in the Hur palace is by far the most moving I have seen in any ancient-world epic, sound or silent. Luckily Thalberg was smart enough to keep those long takes in the picture, rather than having every second of footage not essential to the story cropped or broken up with superficial title cards. It may seem unusual to see these extended emotional sequences in a picture that doesn't spend much time on characterisation or verbal interaction, but it is a perfect use of silent cinema form nonetheless.This Ben-Hur retains the subtitle of Lew Wallace's novel – "A Tale of the Christ", and the religious angle is more integral to the story here than in the 1959 version. In 1959 Jesus was only ever shown from behind, and this is sometimes hailed as a stroke of genius. However his appearance in 1925 is even more tentative, just a hand emerging from offscreen. Of course it is very much like Niblo to use close-ups of hands to define characters, just as it very much like William Wyler (director in 1959) to film actors from behind, but I believe both portrayals owe something to the 19th century stage production, in which the actor playing Jesus kept his back to the audience. In each case this was apparently done out of a religious sense of respect, but I feel the "hands-only" Jesus of 1925 is the most effective because it shows the Christ figure purely as a presence, continuously felt but always just out of sight.Probably the only respect in which the 1959 Ben-Hur is superior to the 1925 version is in its characterisation. The later film is one of the few genuine character-driven epics, with a screenplay that delves into the depths of each relationship, going to lengths to show the different facets of each figure. By comparison the characters in 1925 are simplistic to the point of being crude. Francis X. Bushman's Messala is such an out-and-out villain it's hard for us to accept he was ever likable, whereas we can totally believe that Charlton Heston and Stephen Boyd were childhood friends. It's true that for the most part, the 1920s were still an age of one-dimensional pantomime figures, but the silent epics never tried to be deep or realistic, and any epic that tries to be will ultimately fail, even in the sound era. Instead these pictures thrive on their mood, their grace and their captivating imagery, and the realisation of this by Thalberg and Niblo make the silent Ben-Hur one of the best.
Add another comment
