I realy prefer this version of Ben Hur because of two reason:
1. The Cast was great. I always shiver when I see this *beep* gunfreak Charlton Heston as Ben Hur. This guy is not an actor but a joke!
2. The "Heston"-version is nothing else but a copy of this great version. Some scenes has been copied 1 to 1.
"Death makes angels of us all, lets grow wings instead of wolves claws" (James D. Morrison)
Can't wait for the DVD release of this version in a fortnight. And Heston was great until he took up the whole gun thing. I'd be intrigued to read his autobiography some time to find out why he changed so much.
shareI think I'd have to agree with you. Also, the DVD box says that this version is more faithful to the original Lew Wallace novel, and more complete.
It's an amazing movie.
I think I have to NOT agree with you. You're all insane. The 1925 movie is more faithful to the original book so it's automatically better? Because it's "more complete"? Whatever that means. Because Heston was later a gun nut that lessens his Oscar-winning performance? The Heston film copied the first one? Some scenes are exactly like the first? Really? It was based on the same book and both were made by the same studio, Einstein. Laughable logic.
share[deleted]
My only real complaint about the 1959 version was the rather poor job, even for the time, they did with the sea battle. It really stood out because of all the other effects and stunt work that was superb in the movie. The miniature ships in an obvious tank and the fake-looking flaming projectiles looked like matchheads alit. I've read that they had intended to use full size ships in the ocean like the silent screen original but they were getting overbudget as it was. Tis a shame.
The original was a great film in its day and some of it is still quite impressive but many things including the stagey acting style date it severely.
The 1925 film is dated in its acting and it is a silent movie. It also skims charactors who are given depth in the 1959 version. The political issues are explored with a great deal more sophistication in the 1959 version. The 1925 film plays as a melodrama, and yet I like it better.
1. The sea battle is much better and more impressive in the 1925 version.
2. Francis X Bushman as Messala and Frank Currier as Arrius are more striking in the key Roman roles, even though their charactors are not fleshed out as in the 1959 version. The first image which pops into my head for Messala is Bushman in his armour and gaudy helmets, and for Arrius it is the old man with his white hair and incongruous armour and military bearing.
3. While the 1959 chariot race is more exciting, the 1925 version holds up very well and is actually better staged. The older circus is much more impressive on screen. And the 1925 race has one edge on the 1959 version. It is far more realistic. Messala caused only one accident by cheating rather than an over-the-top series of them. The final pileup certainly looks realistic.
4. The leprosy subplot was handled quicker and yet more poignantly in the 1925 version. The "will Judah find out and when" scenes were tedious and repetitious in 1959. Clare McDowell was more moving than Martha Scott even without dialogue.
5. Haya Harareet was far better as Esther and the scenes with her and Heston are intense, but the playful scenes between Novarro and McAvoy lighten up what is a very grim story. Hugh Griffith came across to me as a pumped up comic relief, sort of like Gabby Hayes in an old western. He has little to do with the plot but is given a lot of screen time to provide the chuckles. When the romantic leads do it in the love scenes, the plot flows better.
6. The simple, naive, quality of the religious scenes in the 1925 version carried me along better. With the superb special effects, the curing of Judah's mother and sister was a highlight in 1925. It had scant impact in the 1959 version. I don't even understand why exactly they were cured.
7. The 1925 version is sexy, with the inclusion of the seductress Iras, the topless dancing girls, and the shots of the south side of a naked young man strapped to a wall in the galley and facing north. There are also "color" shots which linger in the memory, such as the albino monkey on the wealthy woman's shoulder. The 1959 version is, in comparision, very staid.
8. I thought Heston and Novarro were both solid in the leads.
Having just watched both versions, I agree with your observations. These are both masterful films.
You said, however, that the 1925 version was 'sexy'. You are right about that; however, I find the fraternal love between Judah and Massala in the opening scenes of Wyler's picture very sexy.
I also like the scene when Hugh Griffith goes into the baths to make the wager.
Ramon Navarro is much hotter than Charlton Heston.
"I love corn!"
I also prefers this version over the 1959 version with Charlton Heston.
Ramón Novarro was great as Ben-Hur, this dude was one of the biggest stars from the silent era, but now practically nobody remembers him. What a pity!
GREAT movie! some people says that D.W. Griffith's epics are the best silent movies produced by Hollywood (especially "The Birth of a Nation" and "Intolerance") but this one IMO is way better than any film by Griffith.
Remove the t,s, and k in the OP's screenname, and place an o before the u. Then you'll have something that's far more fitting.
shareAs for me, I find the 1959 version superior; however, the 1925 version is still a masterpiece nonetheless
Here are my reviews for the two films:
http://letterofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/08/film-review-ben-hur-1925.html
http://letterofliberty.blogspot.com/2013/08/film-review-ben-hur-1959.html
Eclectic Cinephile
Agreed; the Heston version is tacky and corny, like many films from the 50's are. I feel the same way about most of the 50's epics, with the exception of "El Cid," which is the best of the epics of that time. The 1925 "Ben-Hur" is incredible.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
Well I don't dislike C. Heston as much as you do, however I agree that the 1925 version is vastly superior. The 59 version is an accomplished Hollywood epic, but it's not a "Work of art" like this silent version. 1925's "Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ" contains images of such startling and hypnotic beauty, that watching it can become a kind of spiritual experience. The Heston remake doesn't possess that kind of feeling at all; from first frame to last, the viewer never forgets that he is just watching a big, impressive movie. It does not reach the majestic heights of the original. It's sad that more people aren't aware that it even exists. I believe if you ask a "movie fan" which they prefer, they might say the 59 version. But if you ask a true film scholar, someone who truly understands cinema, they will always name the 25 version as the best film. They included the silent version as an "extra feature" on the dvd of the 1959 version. It should be the other way around. I feel the same way about the 1920's version of "Camille," that it is superior to that soapy version with Greta Garbo. but I know few people would agree with that opinion..
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'