Opening

70% The Equalizer Sep 26
70% The Boxtrolls Sep 26
84% The Two Faces of January Sep 26
—— Two Night Stand Sep 26
91% Jimi: All Is by My Side Sep 26

Top Box Office

63% The Maze Runner $32.5M
65% A Walk Among the Tombstones $13.1M
43% This Is Where I Leave You $11.9M
11% No Good Deed $10.2M
71% Dolphin Tale 2 $9.0M
92% Guardians of the Galaxy $5.2M
20% Let's Be Cops $2.7M
19% Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles $2.6M
88% The Drop $2.0M
37% If I Stay $1.8M

Coming Soon

56% Men, Women & Children Oct 01
100% Gone Girl Oct 03
—— Annabelle Oct 03
67% The Good Lie Oct 03
—— 7500 Oct 03

Premieres Tonight

—— The Big Bang Theory: Season 8
—— The Blacklist: Season 2
50% Forever: Season 1
85% Gotham: Season 1
23% Scorpion: Season 1
—— Sleepy Hollow: Season 2

New Episodes Tonight

71% Dallas: Season 3
62% Under the Dome: Season 2

Discuss Last Night's Shows

—— American Dad!: Season 11
87% Boardwalk Empire: Season 5
53% The Lottery: Season 1
89% Manhattan: Season 1
97% Masters of Sex: Season 2
78% Ray Donovan: Season 2
87% The Strain: Season 1
—— Witches of East End: Season 2

Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ Reviews

Page 1 of 4
AJ V

Super Reviewer

September 24, 2011
I think I ought to re-watch this movie. I did just watch it last week, but it was so long I got bored and wasn't paying attention. I do remember a few good scenes, and the epic landscapes and enormous cast are really cool looking, but it's just so long. It really looks like an expensive picture, and the main cast does a good job, so I think it deserves a re-watch.
July 18, 2007
There's something about the 1925 silent version that moves me far more than the 1959 award-winning remake (with Charlton Heston, no less). Granted, a few of the acting performances are a bit wilted, but, overall, I care more about this group of characters; whereas I'm never really caring about the '59 characters. If you choose to own a silent classic, this would be one of the ones to have. The chariot race is quite spectacular, too!
dooritor
December 15, 2006
they jus dont make them like this anymore.. besides the mistakes with the cut scenes, if you think about the lack of technology in the 20s the chariot race was the greatest achievement known to any movies. oh and 2 and a half hours of non stop music was great, i want more newer movies like that, no talking, just music explaining the moods. so gorgeous!
Maineutral R.
December 14, 2013
Making a film like Ben-Hur in 1959 was truly revolutionary, ambitious and epic. But can you imagine something like that in the 20's? Back then, the media was only starting to exploit the possibilities, and it met a huge upgrade when The Birth of a Nation came in 1915 as the first epic film. 10 years later, Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ came to perfect it.

It's most likely that you watched the 1959 remake. In that case, imagine something just as epic but in black and white and silent. It is possible. This version has some differences with the remake (and we are not talking about the runtime, with the 1959 version being over and hour longer), and it results in characters and story events happening and or acting in different ways, but ultimately resulting equally magnificent. The scope is huge, the action scenes are superb, especially for a film this old, and the overall emotions are well delivered. Yet some of the changes I like them better in the 1959 version, as it leaves on a more powerful note. The subtitle of "A Tale of the Christ" however makes more sense here than in the remake. Jesus appears a bit more often (and with his face off-screen too) and in a much more subtle way than the remake. In the remake you see at least his back, while here you barely see his hand. Nevertheless, it goes a bit too far in suddenly accomplishing miracles while being in the way to the Calvary. It was managed better in the remake, as Jesus also affects Ben-Hur big time after the chariot race, while in this silent version they seem to have lost connection after the water scene. But still, the rest of Ben-Hur is just the magnificent piece you expect.

This and its 1959 remake entered the National Film Registry for preservation, and it shows. While Ben-Hur of 1959 is the perfection, this silent version is what established its greatness. A great example of early cinema.
Righ F.
April 27, 2014
This is greater than 1959's ben-hur.
filmlover1994
November 20, 2013
My Favorite Film Is 1941's Citizen Kane.
gillianren
March 3, 2011
It's a Thirty-Two Horse Pileup in the Hippodrome Today

The funny thing is that this is an hour shorter than the '50s Heston version and still has more than a few scenes I think are unnecessary. I'll admit it's been a while since I read the book, but I don't think Lew Wallace, Civil War general and governor of New Mexico, put in quite as much actual stuff from the Gospels. As I recall, the whole point was that his characters sort of skirted around the edges of the story of Jesus. Yes, the subtitle is "A Story of the Christ," successfully leaving in that "Christ" is a title, but the one thing the movie gets right is in never actually showing all of Jesus. His hands proffer a gourd of water, but His face remains unshown by the camera. However, this particular version of the story feels the need to show us the Holy Family on Christmas Day in early Technicolor. No mere hanging about at the Sermon on the Mount for this version. Let's put them all right up in front so we don't forget whose story this "really" is.

Except it's really the story of Prince Judah Ben-Hur (Ramon Novarro), scion of a minor Judean line of princes. One day, he happens to knock a tile onto the head of a Roman dignitary arriving in Jerusalem, killing him. For this "act of treason," Ben-Hur is made a galley slave, his mother and sister (Claire McDowell and Kathleen Key) are thrown into prison, and all the assets of the House of Hur are seized except what faithful slave Simonides (Nigel De Brulier) and his daughter, Esther (May McAvoy), have already taken away to Antioch. Ben-Hur serves three years as a galley slave. During a battle with pirates, he saves the life of Arrius (Frank Currier), a Roman official, who has him freed and adopts him as his son. Arrius also encourages Ben-Hur, known in Rome as Arrius the Younger, a great athlete, in his goal of seeking out Simonides--and, of course, his mother and sister.

Which, of course, leads to the dramatic chariot race. Ben-Hur's antagonist is one Messala (Francis X. Bushman, actually not a stage name), a Roman with whom he played as a child. Messala is all grown up and Roman, and it is he who declares the accident a murder and has Ben-Hur made a galley slave. It is he who throws the mother and sister into prison. And it is he upon whom Ben-Hur wants revenge. When Ben-Hur has a chance to ride against Messala in a chariot race, he takes it; those things were vicious and sometimes lethal. (It is believed that a man was killed in the original Roman filming of the chariot race, but that footage never made it to the screen. Several horses died in the Hollywood reshoot.) Ben-Hur is the only one with a team of white horses, so it's even easy to work out which one he is. Alas, it's the one usually somewhere in at most fourth place, which makes the suspense die a little. Even leaving aside that you know he has to win. After all, he's got fifty thousand gold pieces riding on the outcome!

During the filming of the remake, Gore Vidal says they realized that the hero and the villain had "a minor disagreement about politics." It's far more than that here. There is extraordinary racism in this work--among the characters. The filmmakers vilify Rome, perhaps a hint more than is deserved, but the anger between Ben-Hur and Messala comes from what Messala says about Jews as a people. Throughout the movie, characters say that Ben-Hur cannot do anything worthwhile because he is a Jew. During the betting before the chariot race, when Ben-Hur is known as the Unknown Jew, only one of the reasons the odds are so heavily stacked in Messala's favour is that people know who Messala is and know of his skill as a charioteer. There is in all of them the assumption that a Jew cannot beat a good Roman. He's got some unfortunate things to say about a Greek in the chariot race as well, though he does seem to be a fan of a certain Egyptian woman.

This isn't DeMille, but it feels as though it ought to be. There is enormous sweep to it, and it's even been suggested that well over a hundred thousand people were in it all told, though of course that's mostly extras. But what extras--half of Hollywood seems to have at least watched the chariot race, whether they were a Name yet or not. The film's producers appeared in the crowd. Such later luminaries as Carole Lombard and Myrna Loy appeared as slave girls. Indeed, one of the many, many assistant directors during the Hollywood version of the chariot race was a young man by the name of William Wyler, who would win an Oscar for the better-known version of this movie some thirty-five years later. This became one of those Big Stories which arguably went a long way toward shaping Hollywood; this one definitely influenced the treating of animals and stuntmen. There's even a one-reeler which predated this by some time, but I have a hard time imagining how you'd fit an epic of this magnitude onto one reel.
January 9, 2011
An excellent film I feel is greatly underrated in some of the comments I've read here. "By today's standards" is an ignorant way of looking at art, but I guess that's typical for brains incapable of seeing something for what it is. This is an epic masterpiece. Over-acting? Try acting without sound. Far superior to some of todays 'epics' with their sensory overload CGI and weak storylines.
David H.
May 12, 2010
A grandious Masterpiece Great Directions, Camera and Actors the Chariot Race Scene was revolutionary for that Time and nearly as good as the Chariot Race Scene from 1959
vic40186
May 12, 2010
:rotten: [SIZE=2][COLOR=Blue][I]This film is overacted, sometimes ridiculous, with unnecesary scenes like Messala's egiptian lover: Ira; but although it has interesting efforts in special effects, the titles to know what is this picture about are corny, some of them are unnecesary or contributes to make the film worse. Ramon Novaro is ovectacted, Esther is miscasted, Messala is a little old to play the character, I liked more the idea of a paralithic Simonides that the remake used. The race of the quadriges is incredibly boring but funny in the moment when Messala crashed with several horses and chariots.

The battle against the pirates in the gallies is great to mention it because is as good as the remake's one. Hurs mother and sister are good but they are a little wasted. Sheik Ilberim is awfully miscasted and overacted, Balthazar is OK. The direction is misfortuned with many scenes and most of the titles. The film is an excellent document to compare both Ben Hur versions, but the 1959's version is the best.
jazza923
May 12, 2010
A MASTERPIECE OF FILMMAKING, A BIT DATED, BUT IN 1926 IT MUST HAVE BEEN AMAZING. IT COMPARES WELL TO THE OVERBLOWN 1959 VERSION. REMARKABLY WELL DONE.
pedro j.
May 8, 2010
marvelous movie. The battlescene in the sea and the charriot race are for me cleary better than the 59 heston version. that scenes are more realistic and dramatic: for example see how the horses crash and fall down. please not underestimate this movie the for the incipient efects. this is not a stone age movie: for the contrary a superb movie if you concentrate in the esential not in the surface. peter melque
Page 1 of 4
Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile