Randy Cliff I know many people pass on black and white movies, but I have recorded many. Recently I have started watching a number of movies from 40s and 30s, but silent movies ... why bother. The '25 Gen-Hur was a real surprise, and an amazingly full story.The version I saw was compiled in '88 (I think) and I was totally impressed with way in which the music was blended with the production. The story line is completely familiar if you have seen the Charlton Heston '59 version, but will additionally scenes.I found it fascinating the choice to always hide Jesus during those scenes, just a hand or a shadow -- possibly a type of respect to allows us to see Him the way that we will.So if you naturally skip past the silent movies, do yourself a favour and enjoy this very well done movie.

icet2004 this movie is awesome.the most famous story of all time. this was the most expensive silent movie of all time. this movie was filmed 10 years and remains still one of the greatest silent movies ever made!and i guess the novel is good too by Lem Wallace but i haven't read it.in my home there is not these novel,but i someday buy it.i personally love epics (most of them Napoleon 1927)and of course this movie is very old too,but it's don't make it bad at all.and this the original version of Ben-Hur 1959 is remake what won 11 Oscars.Fred Niblo was a great silent movie director hands down.Top five silent movies: 1)Napoleon(1927) 2)Metropolis(1927) 3)The Gold Rush(1925) 4)Nosferatu(1922) 5)Ben-Hur A tale of the christ(1925)Sherlock Jr. was good too,but Dr.Caligari Cabinet is highly overrated.

njmollo BEN-HUR The Four-Disc Collector's EditionIt is an ignominious fate that the Original Ben-Hur by which I mean the 1925 silent version has appeared as a bonus feature on the William Wyler's Ben-Hur Four-Disc Collector's Edition. The 1925 Ben-Hur was a huge success. To this day it is still the most successful silent picture ever made. The sensational chariot race as with the William Wyler re-make was at the heart of the movie. It was the first time a Cinema audience had seen such awe-inspiring images. Such as four stallions and a speeding chariot racing directly over the top of a Camera sunk in the Arena track. The first the time a Camera followed a team of horses in close-up and at full gallop. So many film techniques that we take for granted in Action Cinema today were first born in this silent epic and they would be remembered.William Wyler remembered them 34 years later.William Wyler had been an assistant director on the 1925 Original. He had witnessed its staggering success and when the time came for a re-make he was just the man for the job. Maybe you balk at my use of the word re-make? But that is exactly what the William Wyler version was. The studio knew they had a product that worked and did not want to divert from that winning formula. If it ain't broke….!The Arena built in Italy was a virtual replica of the one built in the silent version. They utilized the original construction drawings. They used some of the same moulds for various statues. They even had a complete chariot from the 1925 Original that had already proved itself on film. They had the original designs and drawings of virtually everything that had been constructed 34 years previously and they all worked. On the Extras Disc there is a rather lame documentary called "The Epic that Changed Cinema" where filmmakers repetitively praise the 1959 re-make. A Production Designer expresses his amazement at the imagination it took to design the Arena specifically those gigantic statues at each end of it. Had he seen the Original 1925 Film he would have seen that the Arena and particularly the gigantic statues are all but the same.None of this is touched upon in the two documentaries that are presented on the special features disc. Nothing is mentioned about the suppression of the Original Version by MGM in the run-up to the release of the William Wyler's Ben-Hur or it's eventual burial.The 1925 Ben-Hur is a rather melodramatic and histrionic affair. Most of the performances are over the top and it has the feeling of recorded theatre rather than a movie but what lifts this film into the realms of a classic is simply the chariot race. It is as good as the William Wyler version if not better. It has more chariots!It is a shame that the Silent Original does not have any bonus features. A documentary by Kevin Brownlow could have solved this shameful emission, as the man is responsible for it's restoration and survival. He is also one of the best documentary filmmakers out there. Just watch his Thames Television series called "Hollywood" about America's early film pioneers or "Unknown Chaplin" and you will see what I mean.As for the William Wyler's re-make the same seems to apply. The chariot race is the highlight of the film. The race is remarkably similar in structure, blocking and interpretation as that of the Original. Most of the shots and camera positions are an exactly the same. The rest of William Wyler's epic never really elevates above pure melodrama. The exceptional perfor mance by Hugh Griffith lends the film a much-needed sense of intrigue but generally the film plays by the numbers. The weak latter half of the film almost feels as if you are watching Monty Python's "Life of Brian". The film uses all of the technologies available at the time to best effect. It is beautifully shot in Camera 65 by Robert L. Surtees. It has incredible matt paintings. The production design is romantic yet faultless. The Hollywoodised costumes are beautiful.Gore Vidal is acknowledged to have written the first half of the film up until the chariot race. He is disgracefully not even credited. These early scenes are far superior to the latter plodding religious pontificating. In the first scenes between Ben-Hur and Messala, he has cleverly interwoven a homosexual love affair gone terribly wrong. It explains clearly Messala's brutal reaction. He also has a poke at the waning Un-American Committee by having Messala demand that Ben-Hur name names.The problem with the films as a whole is the source material that they are based on. The Novel is melodramatic, shallow and episodic. Even the title is incorrect "A Story of the Christ". It might be the most read book other than the bible but it does not mean that it is any good. It is simply a compelling adventure yarn with Christ thrown in and as with the films the best part is the chariot race.

AmyLouise I saw this film three times before I ever bothered watching the 1959 remake. Admittedly, watching the latter on television in letter-box format is not the best way to view it, but even on a full screen, nothing would be able to disguise the hammy acting and shallowness of the film.The original, on the other hand, has the spectacular scenes - the battle at sea was much more convincing, and the chariot race superbly well done, but where it really shone though was in the simplicity and intimacy of the performances, and although it's quite long by silent standards, its 2 hours+ length is just about right. Ramon Novarro's performance was very good indeed; I thought Francis X Bushman was a little cold, which marred the early scenes, but struck the right note in the later scenes. And the scenes where the two women leave the prison and make their way to their old home before moving to the Valley of the Lepers were very moving and beautiful to watch. The segment in the Valley, with silent wraith-like figures moving about, and the later healing of the women by Christ on his way to Calvary, also stand out in my memory - a tribute to Fred Niblo and his sensitive direction.Technically, I'm sure it must have been a marvel in its time, and it still stands up today as a very watchable and enjoyable film.