Comparable in scope and grandeur to the famous 1959 version, 1925's "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ" is an epic imaging of Lew Wallace's story of the fall and rise of a Jewish prince during the days of Christ on Earth. While showing its age, the cinematography remains outstanding, with tranquil scenes that look like images from vintage Christmas cards juxtaposed with the magnificent sea battle, the dramatic entry into Jerusalem, the dramatic earthquake that accompanies Christ's crucifixion, and the iconic chariot race. Like most silents, there is a touch of histrionics to the acting but that doesn't detract from the film (although the scene where a servant is being throttled does looks a bit like Homer strangling Bart). There is no need to repeat the history of the film here, but the stories of its production are almost as interesting as the film itself. All-in-all, another outstanding work from the early days of movie making – well-worth watching both in its own right and from the perspective of its place in cinematic history.

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.

A Jewish prince seeks to find his family and revenge himself upon his childhood friend who had him wrongly imprisoned.Film critic Kevin Brownlow has called the chariot race sequence as creative and influential a piece of cinema as the famous Odessa Steps sequence in Sergei Eisenstein's "The Battleship Potemkin", which introduced modern concepts of film editing and montage to cinema. This scene has been much imitated. It was re-created virtually shot for shot in the 1959 remake, copied in the 1998 animated film "The Prince of Egypt", and more recently imitated in the pod race scene in the 1999 film "Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace" which was made almost 75 years later.Strangely, the 1959 version is generally considered the definitive version, or more often people do not even realize an earlier version exists. But I dare say this is actually the superior version. With a good score, this is exciting and adventurous -- sword fights, the chariot race, and an interesting approach to Judeo-Roman history.And, even more startling, if it is true that all those future stars appeared in the film as uncredited extras, this may be the most star-studded film of the 1920s.

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.