How Do You Like The Three Versions Of BEN-HUR?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — I Need To Know
HijodelCid — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 10:45 AM)
I personally feel that the Niblo version has a raw energy and excitement that the Wyler lacks, which makes the latter look stolid and slow moving.
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein) -
The_Herald_Erjen — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 10:53 AM)
I've only seen the first two. Saw the trailer for the third. Lot of CGI. The silent version had a more realistic sea battle than in the Wyler version from the 50's. Looked like real warships instead of models.
"I hear no voice. The dead cannot speak." -
OldAussie — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 05:09 PM)
Briefly -
1925 - 7/10 the action scenes [sea battle and chariot race] are really excellent
1959 - 9/10
2016 - 2/10 and I don't recall exactly why my rating is that high. Must have been something in it I liked at least a little.
"He was a poet, a scholar and a mighty warrior." -
Takeshi-K — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 07:23 AM)
Acting in those days were theatrical, owing to the fact that all actors were theater trained and not television trained where the subtlety of closeups tends to lessen a performance. In a lot of ways I prefer the old style.
-
hobnob53 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 01:55 PM)
This really is a question for the Classic Film Board, not this one. There's a thread about the 1959 version there right now but the others have come up in the conversation.
There are actually
four
versions of
Ben-Hur
: 2016, 1959, 1925 and a one-reel adaptation from 1907. It goes without saying that cramming the novel into ten minutes doesn't leave much time for character and plot development but it's interesting to see how they managed the chariot race (badly, from one angle only, but it must have seemed like something 110 years ago).
There is a dynamism in the 1925 film that's lacking in much of the 1959 version, which as you say is in many places stolid and slow-moving. The religious angle is more heavy-handed in the '59 than the '25 too. And the sea battle is certainly far more realistic in the '25 than the '59, with its too-obvious model work.
But overall I give the edge to the Wyler version over Fred Niblo's. Wyler, incidentally, worked as an assistant director on the 1925 film.
Haven't seen the 2016 except for some CGI-heavy clips, which look fake and cheap, compared to the real thing in the '59 and '25. That alone sends up lots of warning flags, besides the poor reviews and bad word-of-mouth. Direct comparisons with '07 are misplaced given its limitations, but it's worth a look as a curio.