mr6666 Posted December 19, 2011 Share Posted December 19, 2011 I actually prefer the older silent version. The sea battle and chariot scenes were much more exciting. There seemed to be more back-story exposition and there were more biblical scenes included, making "...A Tale of the Christ" seem more appropriate. Navarro did pretty well, though Heston seemed more physically fitting. Some scene for scene re-shoots were remarkably similar (as mentioned in the priest/rabbi discussion often aired). Boyd & Bushman were both kind of hammy, but Boyd seemed more realistic, where Bushman seemed more hysterically psychotic. Any thoughts?? Link to post Share on other sites
FredCDobbs Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 >I actually prefer the older silent version. I do too. It is really a magnificent film, and the music is just perfect. The color is very good too. Bushman was a cad and he looked like a cad: Link to post Share on other sites
ValentineXavier Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I prefer the '59, for its electric starter, over the '25, with its hand crank start. Link to post Share on other sites
FredCDobbs Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 >with its hand crank start. Those are called "fade ins". The film had a lot of fade ins and fade outs, to represent time passing in-between the scenes. Link to post Share on other sites
ValentineXavier Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Film? I thought we were talking about cars. Link to post Share on other sites
scottman1932 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I enjoy both versions, but I do have a preference for the 1925 version. As Fred pointed out, the color tints are excellent and so are the two color Technicolor inserts. I love Carl Davis score it's terrific. Link to post Share on other sites
joefilmone Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 The silent version is a lot more fun- the last time I tried watching the 1959 version I found it a viusally impressive bore- except for the chariot race of course Link to post Share on other sites
midnight08 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I much more prefer the silent version. Link to post Share on other sites
johnm001 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I prefer the silent version, except for the chariot race and the score, which I find superior in the '59 version. Particularly the score, which I would count among the to 10 film scores of all-time. Link to post Share on other sites
Sprocket_Man Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I'd say Miklos Rozsa's score was the best ever -- the Beethoven's Ninth of film music. Link to post Share on other sites
joefilmone Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Rozsas' magnificent score really adds an extra emotional dimension to the film specially in that final scene. Link to post Share on other sites
gagman66 Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 The part of the picture that no one is mentioning here is the Nativity. I personally feel that it is much more impressive in the Silent version. Likewise, the manifestation of the Star of Bethlehem seems considerably more awe inspiring in the 1925 original. There really is no comparison. And difficult to match the exquisite ethereal beauty of Betty Bronson as the Blessed Mother. Perhaps the most stunning Virgin Mary ever depicted on screen. In 1925, BEN HUR was screened live with Orchestra's playing the William Axt-David Menoza score. I have not heard it myself, but my friend Jack Theakston has. He actually prefers the Axt-Mendoza score to the Carl Davis one. So it must be extremely imposing. Incidentally, I watched BEN HUR (1925) last week. I did not record it because I had the previous DVD extra released in 2005. I didn't expect anything different this time around. However, at least several portions of this clearly looked much better than I have ever seen it look before on Television. I wondered it is couldn't have been partly re-mastered for the new Blu-ray extra but as a DVD release? Can someone shed a light on this matter? Thanks? Link to post Share on other sites
JeanHagen Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 I prefer the '59 version, probably partly because I grew up watching this one. I'll admit I sometimes have a hard time watching silent movies and found some of the acting overdone in the '25 version, so this is probably another factor. One thing I love about the '59 version is how Wyler portrays Jesus. We understand Jesus' magnificence by other's reactions to him. Link to post Share on other sites
gagman66 Posted December 26, 2011 Share Posted December 26, 2011 {font:Arial}One area where the 1959 version has an advantage is the cleansing of Judah's Mother and Sister from their leprosy. The rains carry the blood or Christ to where they are hiding and the Woman are healed of there affliction. Where as in the Silent version they are made well during Jesus march to Calvary So a very different and in this case more powerful treatment in the remake. On the other hand, I think the Battle at Se is superior in the Silent version. Another area where the 1925 film sadly fails is the build-up to Ben Hur returning to Antioch confronting Simondies, reuniting with Esther, agreeing to be the Sheiks driver against Massalla. Next we have the Carmel Myers trying to seduce him, Esther revealed as a Slave, yadda, yadda. And the title-cards insist all this could happen in one day? Not hardly! Disappointed in that part. I can see these events taking place maybe over a weeks time, but not just a single day prior to the races. {font} Link to post Share on other sites
Gorch Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 I was wondering if last year's Blu Ray release of the 1959 version had changed anyone's opinion. There are details and colors that were never clear before, even in the last DVD. This film provides an excuse to anyone who wants to switch formats. The picture is nothing less than stunning. By the way, the 1925 version is included. Link to post Share on other sites
dpompper Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Gotta buy me one o' dem blue ray machines. Do blue ray machines play non-blue-ray DVDs? Link to post Share on other sites
Gorch Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 I resisted upgrading to blue ray for quite a long time because I have an extensive DVD collection, but when I saw the difference between the two formats, I had to selectively replace the DVDs. You absolutely can watch DVDs on a blue ray player, but you really require a good widescreen TV to enjoy the best picture. The best blues I have seen are "Ben Hur", Lawrence of Arabia", "Zulu" and "Bridge on the River Kwai". As a bonus, they all have extra features never on any format. If you love films and can afford it, I'd give it a try. Link to post Share on other sites
dpompper Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 <I have an extensive DVD collection> Ditto. Being able to (or not) play my DVDs on a blue ray machine would be the deal breaker. Good info. Thanks, gorch. Link to post Share on other sites
ValentineXavier Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 > {quote:title=dpompper wrote:}{quote}Gotta buy me one o' dem blue ray machines. Do blue ray machines play non-blue-ray DVDs? All BD players will play DVDs. The best BD players will make your standard DVDs look better than ever, but, of course, not as good as BDs... Link to post Share on other sites
joefilmone Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 They are actually planning to re-make this again! In IMAX and 3-D of course! Link to post Share on other sites
Hibi Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 OH, BROTHER! I wonder who'll play Ben?? Link to post Share on other sites
dpompper Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Bradley Cooper's the hot ticket right now, yes? Link to post Share on other sites
Hibi Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I might pay to see him in a toga........... Link to post Share on other sites
dpompper Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 James Purefoy is my big celeb crush and he looked GREAT in a toga (and out of one) in HBO's "Rome." I'm afraid that he might be a bit old to play Ben now. Also, he's British. . . but that's never been an impediment in Hollywood, right? Link to post Share on other sites
Hibi Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 NO. Charlton wasnt exactly young. I'm not familiar with him........ Edited by: Hibi on Feb 21, 2013 10:55 AM Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now