Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

JohnHowardReid The success of this movie rests squarely on the shoulders of the leading man. In this case, those shoulders are totally – and by totally I mean 95% – inadequate. From our first glimpse to the last, Ramon Novarro is an inescapable liability. He doesn't look the part. Worse, he acts against the part. He is weak when the script demands he be strong. He is moonie when he is required to be decisive. He is supine rather than charismatic, impotent rather than forceful, delicate rather than robust. He is an absolute dead loss throughout the whole movie, except oddly for one sequence. Surprisingly, he handles the galley-slave scenes with vigor, dignity and guts. He's perfect in these scenes, but a liability everywhere else. You should see the flippy way he holds the reins from his chariot. There's Francis X. Bushman whipping his horses into a frenzy, and what's pallid little Novarro doing? He's namby-pambying along at about two miles an hour, showing not the slightest signs of sweat or exertion, while the other charioteers are kicking up dust all around him. "What, me worry?" he seems to be saying. "Let the stunt men do all the work. And anyhow, every man, woman and child in the audience knows this race is fixed anyway!" Presumably, the galley scenes were not directed by easygoing Niblo but by someone like Brabin or Ingram with a bit more authority.Otherwise, the movie is a blend of good, bad and indifferent. It is good to see Joseph depicted as an elderly man, but somewhat odd to see someone ask him if he is "Joseph of Nazareth?" And even more peculiar to see him answer in the affirmative. How could he possibly be Joseph of Nazareth? The title-writers have just gone to a great deal of effort to tell us he is "Joseph of Bethlehem". The movie then repeats the canard that the wise men visited the Child at the stable (here converted into a cave) even though Luke makes quite an issue of the fact that the wise men actually arrived much later, after the Divine Family had settled into a "house". Normally, the introduction of a strong, charismatic hero at this stage would soon make an audience forget such piddling points (as indeed is the case in the remake with Charlton Heston). But, as said, the disappointing excuse for a hero presented by weak-as-water Novarro only draws more attention to other script defects. Fortunately, director Fred Niblo was blessed with supporting players, led by Francis X. Bushman and Nigel De Brulier who do their best to focus the audience's eyes elsewhere. In fact, Niblo adds lots of clever little touches that Wyler didn't dare repeat, like the extra woman who sneers at the jubilant Jewish bible-basher who feels that prophecies are being fulfilled; and the naked girls who strew flowers along the road for the Roman conquerors; and the soldiers who rip the bodice from a bystander just for the hell of it; and the slimy, contemptible Jewish apple vendor who browbeats a venerable old man for stealing one of his apples. Yes, in many respects, the script is much stronger in this version. Sheik Ilderim (poorly enacted and obviously false-bearded here) is still a weak link, but Simonides (superbly played by Nigel De Brulier) is much stronger and helps disguise the over-enthusiastic May McEvoy (whose super-animated Esther is still far preferable to the nothing performance contributed by Haya Harareet). On the hand, the Messala role is not as cleverly built up as in the Wyler version. Mind you, Bushman makes a great impression nonetheless. Frank Currier also impresses as Quintus Arius, although he is not given all the flattering camera angles and extra footage accorded Jack Hawkins. Yet on the whole the galley scenes are far more awesome in this version than in the remake where it is often obvious that miniatures are being used. In this 1925 version, not only do all the ships look real, but the boarding and ramming sequences are ten times more horrifying. Although as in the remake, her appearance is brief, Mary is beautifully played here by Betty Bronson. True, she doesn't look the slightest bit Jewish, but Betty gives such a luminous performance that the word "discrepancy" simply doesn't figure at all.

kekseksa It is somewhat comical to see and hear people defending the 1959 version of this film (without difficulty) against the derisory 2016 film simply because the silent version is immeasurably better than either.The only reason that i can see for so many commentaries here to fail to see this is simply because of the absurd prejudice that remains in people's minds concerning silent films. Some fellow says that the film is too long for most people to endure "without dialog" and this would be a crass remark to take except that the really awful thing is that it is true although the logic of such a prejudice for yak-yak entirely eludes me. It is long but there are several silent films (and some of the best) that are longer. The magnificent 1924 Greed, the superb 1927 Napoléon?But, if you are one of those benighted souls who simply cannot believe that a silent film version of a film can be better than a sound version (even when made by a great director), please watch the 1926 and 1952 versions of What Price Glory? Walsh's 1926 version is superb; John Ford's version is gruesomely bad. Many other "silent" versions are better than their sound equivalents but this one is a glaring and incontrovertible example.To be fair, I do understand that modern audiences have difficulty in watching silent films because they tend to lack the capacity for concentration that is required. Don't just "endure" this film for two hours. Watch it two or three times (it is well worth the effort) and you will be surprised how much more you begin to notice and appreciate and also begin to understand that a failure to enjoy silent films to the full is not a fault in the films but a fault in the viewers who have lost the capacity to view a film as a film deserves to be viewed.In the case of the two Ben-Hurs that count (I will not try and defend the 1907 Olcott version), Wyler's 1959 film is a very shallow piece of work, completely typical of the fifties US epic, glossy, pompous, ahistorical and overly romantic. This 1926 version is quite different. The 1959 version is in truth remembered for nothing but the chariot-race (very largely copied from the 1926 film) but the 1926 film is a dark vision of colonial domination, racial prejudice and tyrannical power (just as fascist movements were taking root throughout Europe). None of this is there in the 1959 film, despite Wyler's being an expatriate German.Heston's portrayal of Hur is about as un-Jewish as one can imagine (rather as though Schwarzenegger, had he been a little younger, had been chosen to play the part in 2018).The strong religious them is not to all tastes (it is not very much to mine) but this is a faithful and intelligent reflection of the novel and extremely well done. Like it or leave it, this is what the novel wanted to say and something which the 1959 film totally fails to reflect satisfactorily. In fact the entire political subtext of the story, eminently clear in this version, is largely incomprehensible in the Wyler film.Ben-Hur is certainly also about spectacle. It had already been so for more than twenty years on the stage before ever this film was made. But there too it seems to me this films achieves more and better than the 1959 version. The spectacle in this film remains breath-taking and is far from restricted to the chariot-race or the magnificent sea-battle.As for the 2016 version, 90 years on, one draws a veil.........By the way, for those zombies who compile these cast-lists, there are no such people as Miss Remington and Miss Underwood (or at least there are or rather were thousands of them. Remington and Underwood were famous makes of typewriter and this is just a little joke that appears in the documentary film 1925 Studio Tour.

John W Chance This film is a must see; it's a stunning visual achievement. The most expensive silent film ever made. The staggeringly elaborate sets, the camera-work, the Technicolor segments, and the special effects are absolutely spectacular.The sea battle and chariot race sequences are better here than they are in the more famous sound version. 'Breezy' Eason, the race's second unit director had 62 assistant directors working on the fantastic chariot race sequence, one of whom was William Wyler, who made the sound version of 'Ben Hur' in 1959, and who repeated much of what we see in these two seminal parts of both versions. The chariot race camera work is amazing: it's exciting, tight, fast and expertly edited, even including shots of horses seen from the ground looking up. No wonder the race's editing was so remarkable -- 200,000 feet of shot film was cut to 750 feet! Action director Eason was notorious for his cavalier treatment of animal safety, so much so that as a result of so many wounded or killed horses on his 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' (1936), the Humane Society started monitoring animal safety during film shooting. Here, at the end of the race we see a massive pile up of chariot teams of horses, like cars on a freeway. The only really grim moment.Ramon Novarro does more than a creditable job as Judah, Ben-Hur, if you can get that image of the huskier Charlton Heston out of your mind. Actually, Ramon does a better job-- he's not playing his own stereotype. He didn't have much later success in films, though you can find him in an episode of Boris Karloff's 'Thriller' (1962) TV show. May McAvoy, who plays Esther, left films when sound came in, but returned in the forties to only uncredited parts. Betty Bronson, after her star turn 'Peter Pan' (1924) appears briefly here as a beatific (but very unpregnant looking) Mary mother of Jesus during the opening Nativity sequences (some in color!). You can see her still playing pixie girls as Gene Autry's love interest in 'Yodelin' Kid from Pine Ridge' (1937).The person who had the most continuing success was Francis X. Bushman (Massala), whom we are used to seeing as an old man in 50s and 60s TV shows and junk movies. As the villain, he was not in this movie enough, or was bad enough, as was Stephen Boyd in the sound version. Here his face and makeup reminded me of Al Lewis as 'Grandpa' in 'The Munsters.' He can be seen as the police chief in the first self-titled Dick Tracy serial (1937).A real bonus to the film, in the crystal clear four disk set from M-G-M is the new magnificent music soundtrack by Carl Davis, composer of not only the TV series 'World at War', but of original scores for 'Intolerance' (1916), 'Greed' (1924), 'The Thief of Bagdad' (1924), 'The Phantom of the Opera' (1924), 'The General' (1927) and 'Napoleon' (1927). Needless to say he knows how to fit the score to the film; knowing when to put it in the background, as he does in the extended touching emotional scene where Judah's mother and sister discover him sleeping, and when to pump it up into the foreground as he does for the chariot race. Great placement and use of music! A cast of 125,000 people. Almost two and a half hours, that go by quickly. The whole story told as in the remake, but with a little more added here. This version emphasizes the expectations the Jewish people had for a Deliverer, and it also adds depth to the revolutionary message of Christianity. Unbelievable sets, great camera-work, action and visual story telling. You've got to give it at least an 8.So why not a 10? Ultimately it's not up to the great 10s of Silent German Cinema. Here we get a film about Ben 'Horatio Alger' Hur's fall and rise to fame and fortune told in easy and continuing coincidences, especially in the final ten minutes, with a lot of overwrought acting not very much controlled by silent film director Niblo.But still, this a definite must see silent film for the magnificent achievement that it is. I give it an 8.

wes-connors Ramon Novarro (as Judah Ben-Hur) grows up in Judea, around the same time as Jesus Christ. A wealthy Jew, Mr. Novarro maintains his princely lifestyle, despite the Roman occupation of his land. After a number of years, Novarro encounters old friend Frances X. Bushman (as Messala), a Roman. Novarro soon discovers that politics does not, in this case, make strange bedfellows; as Mr. Bushman is the steadfast leader of the occupying Roman forces. Soon, political and religious upheavals threaten Novarro's earthly existence… Epic "state-of-the-art" perfection, from Fred Niblo and the new MGM company. Despite production setbacks (the film commenced in 1923), and several personnel changes, the silent "Ben-Hur" emerged, at last, triumphant. It's a worthy treatment of Lew Wallace's highly successful novel; and, importantly, it treats Christianity with a respectful reverence not present in other Biblical epics, which attempt to dramatize faith-based religious events.Novarro's characterization is extraordinary; at this point in his career, it's difficult to say where the line between instinctive subtly and wise direction is drawn. However he learned, Novarro's range is clearly evident, and career sustaining. And, happily, he looks like a young "Judah". The close-ups during his initial scenes with Bushman, and the color filmed re-emergence from slavery are outstanding. The film's use of black-and-white, tinted, and color film is perfect; it helps to set moods, without ever jarring.The character "Messala", played by veteran Bushman, is the story's villain. The drama is centered on the dissolution of a past friendship between Novarro's "Jew" and Bushman's "Roman". Bushman's relative age, and ghostly looking eyes, help make him look menacingly evil. Novarro's relative youth invites some questions about his past friendship with the older Bushman; Novarro's naivety suggest the characters may not have shared the same point of view, after all, regarding their relationship.The "leading ladies" are neither as good, nor as appropriately cast as, Haya Harareet in the 1959 re-make. This version does boast a swell parade of bare-breasted women (and bare male buttocks). Also standing out, among the fine supporting players, are Claire McDowell's "Mother Hur" and Mitchell Lewis' "Sheik Ilderim". The spectacular "sea battle" was not bested by the 1959 re-make, but the "chariot race" was either matched, or surpassed. The entire cast and crew had every reason to be proud of the completed "Ben-Hur." Both the 1925 and 1959 versions of "Ben-Hur" are essential viewing.Novarro and Bushman deservedly won special "Golden Globe" awards during the 1959 film season; almost certainly, these awards acknowledged their lead and supporting roles in the original version of that year's big award winner. ********** Ben-Hur (12/30/25) Fred Niblo ~ Ramon Novarro, Frances X. Bushman, May McAvoy, Claire McDowell