Winner of 11 Academy Awards in 1959, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actor. 'Ben-Hur' remains one of the most inspirational, epic action spectacles ever made by a major Hollywood studio. It was a landmark achievement in grand peplum/biblical genre storytelling. Directed by William Wyler, the film tells the story of a kind, wealthy Jew, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) whose life is thrown upside down, when he is betrayed and falsely accused of crimes against the Roman Empire by his childhood friend, turn tribune Messala (Stephen Boyd). Spending three years as a galley slave, Judah must find, a way to restore himself to high standing and while, also seeking revenge on his enemies. Without spoiling the movie, too much, while everybody thinks that this movie was the original; it was in fact, the third movie, follow after 1907 & 1925 of the same name to be made from Lew Wallace's successful novel, 1880's 'Ben-Hur: A Tale of The Christ'. It can be argued that a talking picture made from the same story as an earlier silent film is not a true remake, since the storytelling techniques each employ are so radically different, but that's up to debate, but at least, it's more original than the later films that came after it, like the 2003's animation version & the 2016 remake. Anyways, like the book, the movie also has a sub-story running in parallel with Judah's main event narrative; which was the unfolding story of Jesus. While, Jesus does play a more important role in this story more than other films, his cameo presence is still somewhat tangential. It's jarring to see a violent revenge plot, mixed his story about love thy neighbor. Thank God, the film cut the sequences of Ben-Hur faking his death, and raising a Jewish army to overthrow the Romans, as it felt that Christ's message of forgiveness, could be lost. Still, 'Ben-Hur' is the only Hollywood film to make the Vatican approved film list in the category of religion, despite having scenes of him killing an innocent guard. However, the film does have other problems than the mixed messages, it was presenting. The book and the films have always been accuse of being too similar to the book, 'The Count of Monte Cristo" by author Alexandre Dumas to the point that some critics have stated out that the film is 'The Count of Monte Cristo meets Quo Vadis'. While, me, personal, I don't see much of anything comparable; some critics says, the film is ripping off, that premise, way too much. Regardless, I did like the changes by the many screenwriters, did, to couther, being too similar to the novel, like having Messala's vindictiveness be motivated by a sexual and romantic rejection as much as a political one. I'm one of the few people that, kinda like the somewhat hidden homoerotic overtones between Judah and Messala. I also love how Heston didn't know about this; adding an interesting uncomfortable dynamic to the tense dialogue scenes between the two actors. It adds some spice and realism that was really needed for this period film. I also like how the film, add symbolism to the ocean scenes and also cut other things, like the character of Ira from the novel. I always felt that the scenes with her, was time-wasting. On top of that, the other changes like having Judah's sister being the one who dislodge the roof tile & how they treat Messala after the climatic chariot race were equally as important. However, the movie still have pacing issues. 212 minutes running time is way too long. While, I get why, the soul-stirring scenes of Christ's birth and crucifixion was needed, as it provide biblical bookends for MGM's action-packed epic. I think the outdated, theatrical overture & intermission sequence should had been delete in future releases. If anything, scenes like Judah declines the race at times, even after he learns that Messala will also compete, could had been delete as well, as the famous chariot race sequence did happen, later on the film, regardless of Judah wanting to do it or not. It felt like filler. Despite that, the climactic chariot race, which includes collisions, men dragged under chariots, bloody injuries, and intensely suspenseful competition, was so impressive in the stunt work & make up that it set new standards for action-filmmaking without modern cinematic razzle-dazzle. It was very surprising to hear that nobody got kill or seriously hurt. The colorful 1959 version was the most expensive film ever made up to its time, and the most expensive film of the 50s decade. Shot on the grand scale of $15 million, the film took six years to prepare, and over a half year in production, it was a tremendous make-or-break risk for MGM Studios. Luckily, for them, the project, ultimately saved the studio from bankruptcy as it became a box office hit, earning three times more than it took to make. Does it hold up? Yes, while it's slow at times, and some of the acting feels now, mannered, stiff, and awkward like Hugh Griffith in blackface. It still worth the praise and achievements, it got, when it first released. It still has great acting from all the cast, including more physically than emotionally compelling Heston, amazing color widescreen cinematography from Robert Surtees, beautiful music from composter Miklós Rózsa & wonderful costumes from Elizabeth Haffenden and her crew. However, this movie might be too intense to be rated G, even at the time. After all, this movie has a leper colony where two principles characters are shown with open, rotting sores and a few men drowning in the ocean battle. If anything, it could be rated PG or PG-13 now. Regardless of that, I have say, Ben-Hur is one of the ultimate epics movies of all time. A legendary movie that needs to be rewatch, time after time again. Highly recommended.
519 Reviews
OMG! Ben-Hur is one of the best movies ever made. It's a sweet chariot. That's worth the ride.
ironhorse_iv18 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A must watch movie for every movie buff
sauravjoshi8523 December 2018
Still good after 40+ years, but made for a different audience.
LBytes4 September 2001
Ben Hur, a Tale of the Christ, was hugely popular as a novel, a play and two movies. It was written in a less vulgar time about a very spiritual event. Seen today by moviegoers addicted to constant action and low frequency effects, it will seem ponderous, slow and pretentious. Well, it is a little. You have to pay attention to the dialogue or you won't get it at all. Some of the intimate scenes aren't all that great. Anyone that really pays attention can tell the sea battle is done with miniatures. It's still worth watching. As everyone ought to know by now, the chariot race is one-of-a-kind; nothing else comes close to that real live race where the main actors actually raced most of the time. I just watched this movie after lapse of about 10 years. I still enjoyed it. The sea battle is still fun even if you know the boats are about as big as a man. The few moments which have Christ on the screen are still moving. Just about all of the acting is good with only a few forgettable moments. Just be ready to spend about 4 hours in front of the screen listening to occasionally flowery dialog.
Epic
gogoschka-115 November 2015
When I first saw 'Ben Hur' I was 8 years old and hadn't seen many films, since we were hardly ever allowed to watch television. Imagine what an impact this film had on me (my movie diet had so far consisted of Chaplin and Disney films - which, of course, is not at all a bad thing).
The experience was simply mesmerizing. Awe and wonder filled me as I watched this story of shocking betrayal, revenge and forgiveness unfold on screen - and by the time the heart-stopping chariot race was over, my fate as a future movie addict was sealed.
Despite its 212 minutes running time, this is storytelling at its finest that knows how to entertain; as we follow Judah Ben-Hur's dramatic journey from Jerusalem to Rome and back again, the film just never lets up and immerses you completely.
It's hard to imagine anything more cinematic, especially at the time: if ever there was an epic that was meant to be seen on the big screen in all its bombastic glory, it's Ben Hur. And even now, after I've seen the film many, many times, I feel like this story has a certain sense of greatness to it that is touching (and I don't mean that in a religious sense).
My verdict: this film was and is nothing like the many "sandal and sword" or bible films of that era; it is (at least to me) the ultimate film epic. With its touching story and fantastic action sequences - which I think hold up amazingly well - Ben Hur is among the milestones of its era and part of film history.
Pure cinema and a must see. 10 stars out of 10.
Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: imdb.com/list/ls075552387/
Favorite films: IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/
Lesser-Known Masterpieces: imdb.com/list/ls070242495/
Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: imdb.com/list/ls054808375/
The experience was simply mesmerizing. Awe and wonder filled me as I watched this story of shocking betrayal, revenge and forgiveness unfold on screen - and by the time the heart-stopping chariot race was over, my fate as a future movie addict was sealed.
Despite its 212 minutes running time, this is storytelling at its finest that knows how to entertain; as we follow Judah Ben-Hur's dramatic journey from Jerusalem to Rome and back again, the film just never lets up and immerses you completely.
It's hard to imagine anything more cinematic, especially at the time: if ever there was an epic that was meant to be seen on the big screen in all its bombastic glory, it's Ben Hur. And even now, after I've seen the film many, many times, I feel like this story has a certain sense of greatness to it that is touching (and I don't mean that in a religious sense).
My verdict: this film was and is nothing like the many "sandal and sword" or bible films of that era; it is (at least to me) the ultimate film epic. With its touching story and fantastic action sequences - which I think hold up amazingly well - Ben Hur is among the milestones of its era and part of film history.
Pure cinema and a must see. 10 stars out of 10.
Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: imdb.com/list/ls075552387/
Favorite films: IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/
Lesser-Known Masterpieces: imdb.com/list/ls070242495/
Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: imdb.com/list/ls054808375/
Film-making on a truly epic scale
Leofwine_draca22 June 2012
What's not to love about BEN-HUR? It's a film that tells an epic story in an epic way, filling every shot with artistry and colour until the screen overflows with splendour. Despite a lengthy running time, the pacing never flags. The episodic structure of the storyline works in the film's favour, ably chronicling the adventures of the titular character as he undergoes a thrilling journey to hell and back.
It has Charlton Heston playing his most famous role and being incredibly manly and heroic in it. It has a cast of seasoned performers in support, not least Jack Hawkins as the sympathetic Roman. It has Stephen Boyd as a truly nasty piece of work villain. It has the most spectacular and complex action sequence ever put on film in the shape of the chariot race, which is just as thrilling and breathtaking as it was when it was first released in cinemas back in the day.
And, finally, it's a film engages the senses and the emotions. It never forgets, amid all the glory and the epic wonder of the scenery and action, that this is a human story about real people struggling with their lives. There's a message there for any viewer, Christian or otherwise, and that's the reason why BEN-HUR hasn't dated a day since it was first released. It's a true classic for a reason.
It has Charlton Heston playing his most famous role and being incredibly manly and heroic in it. It has a cast of seasoned performers in support, not least Jack Hawkins as the sympathetic Roman. It has Stephen Boyd as a truly nasty piece of work villain. It has the most spectacular and complex action sequence ever put on film in the shape of the chariot race, which is just as thrilling and breathtaking as it was when it was first released in cinemas back in the day.
And, finally, it's a film engages the senses and the emotions. It never forgets, amid all the glory and the epic wonder of the scenery and action, that this is a human story about real people struggling with their lives. There's a message there for any viewer, Christian or otherwise, and that's the reason why BEN-HUR hasn't dated a day since it was first released. It's a true classic for a reason.
The Tale of all Tales...
ElMaruecan824 January 2018
In the ears and minds of any movie lover, the word "Ben-Hur" resonates like the quintessential Hollywood classic oozing respectability in every inch of celluloid but the same respect we owe to an old relic. In our cynical modern world, who would enjoy a pompous-looking big-budget swords-and-sandals religious epic when you have Tarantino and Appatow?
I saw "Ben-Hur" for the first time in fourth grade, it was part of our history course and being an Asterix buff, I loved watching real-life legionaries, galley slavery not to mention the chariot race, the film also enlightened me on Christianity and on Judaism (when my only religious reference was monotheism number three) and scared the hell out of me with leper. It worked on a cinematic level as much as educational, I guess even in its TV-sized crappy 80's VHS look, we kids enjoyed "Ben-Hur" especially the rivalry between Judah (Charlton Heston) and Messala (Stephen Boyd).
I never watched "Ben-Hur" after that but nor did I have any doubt over its status as a colossal masterpiece. Watching it again a few years ago and then a few days ago, I was surprised by how engraved in my memory "Ben-Hur" was, and how the moments that stood out were still having the same effect. When Ben-Hur and Messala meet after many years, I'm always anticipating that first breech in the fortress of their friendship when the young Roman tribune will have one word too many about Ben-Hur's people, taking for granted their friendship and Judah's nobility as marks of submission. The second encounter is even more thrilling because it's like watching a shaking edifice waiting to collapse.
It was a nice call from the director Wyler to mark the feud between the two ex-friends at the second encounter, hence putting more gravitas around their relationship, that screenwriter Gore Vidal tried to impregnate with homoerotic subtext. The story is known by movie buffs, Vidal wanted to make the interactions look as the two rivals were former lovers, the subtext works even more when you look at Stephen Boyd's "enamored" eyes toward Charlton Heston. But 'Chuck' never knew the trick and was annoyed about it, I guess I prefer the way their hatred epitomize the conflict between Romans and Jews sealing as one of the most memorable rivalries in history of cinema, with the most heart-pounding climactic face-to-face (or should I say wheel-to-wheel).
I had positive feelings about "Gladiator" but "Ben-Hur" is the masterpiece that dwarfs any contemporary masterpiece, a sweeping revenge story that doesn't rely at all on fake CGI and special effects. It took William Wyler's expertise built up in three decades of experience to make "Ben-Hur" equal the reference of the time that was Cecil B. De Mille's 1925 version. As a matter of fact, "Ben-Hur" has been blockbuster material from the start, ever since Lewis Wallace's best-seller of the late century, it was played on theaters and not with modest budgets. A revenge story, with galley combats, a chariot race and an oblique take on the greatest story ever told, with a hero going from idealism to anger, from revenge to love, all wrapped up in a subtle religious conversion, "Ben-Hur" was an instant classic Hollywood couldn't ignore.
If 1925 had the race and the thrills, the 1959 one had a bigger scope, bigger budget, the colors, the talking and all the determination of a big studio like MGM to prove a 50's audience that TV wasn't yet the pinnacle of spectacular entertainmnet. When I hear my Dad talking about going to the movies, like "Ben-Hur", "Spartacus", "Guns of Navarone" or "Taras Boulba" you would think he went there, inside the screen. And right now, I can't imagine the eyes of people staring at the screen during the chariot race, there comes a moment where you stop watching the moment as a plot element, but as a real race, and it never, never suspends your disbelief, it's like at any new viewing, Messalah can finally win.
There are so many classic moments that filled the three-hour-and-half journey that you're never in a state of non-anticipation, when the new inquisitor's parade starts, you keep an eye on that loose roof tile, the one that started the whole chain of events. In the desert, you wait for the 'greatest cameo ever made', in the galleys, the big fight and Ben-Hur rescuing Arrius (Jack Hawkins) and it goes on and on. I must reckon after the chariot race, the film gets a tad too long, but only because you can't just sweep off such a rich epic with a five-minute resolution, and Charlton Heston, in his greatest role, contributed a lot to the everlasting appeal of the film, I don't think he gets the credit he deserved, he brings to his Judah Ben-Hur a dimension of emotional vulnerability that could have been laughable from a lesser actor.
Other cast members include Oscar-winning Hugh Griffin enjoying his role as Arab sheikh and Judah's mentor, Israeli actress Haya Harareet as Esther, Martha Scott and Cathy O'Donnell as Judah's mother and sister... the film is served by a solid cast, editing, directing, having swept off all the major Oscar by breaking the record of 11 wins, only to be matched in 1997 with "Titanic" and "The Return of the King" and oddly enough, these titles could somewhat apply to "Ben-Hur".
I haven't seen the 'original' and I'm in no hurry for the remake, but I don't get I'll be in a minority if I say that this is the ultimate version. I didn't see it many times in my life but it's always present in my memories as if it wasn't about the number of times you watch it but the intensity of each experience. And let's not forget the name of the director: William Wyler who outdid himself by making his masterpiece, which is saying a lot, given his previous streaks.
"Ben-Hur": A Christ Tale, a tale of vengeance, in fact a tale of all tales...
I saw "Ben-Hur" for the first time in fourth grade, it was part of our history course and being an Asterix buff, I loved watching real-life legionaries, galley slavery not to mention the chariot race, the film also enlightened me on Christianity and on Judaism (when my only religious reference was monotheism number three) and scared the hell out of me with leper. It worked on a cinematic level as much as educational, I guess even in its TV-sized crappy 80's VHS look, we kids enjoyed "Ben-Hur" especially the rivalry between Judah (Charlton Heston) and Messala (Stephen Boyd).
I never watched "Ben-Hur" after that but nor did I have any doubt over its status as a colossal masterpiece. Watching it again a few years ago and then a few days ago, I was surprised by how engraved in my memory "Ben-Hur" was, and how the moments that stood out were still having the same effect. When Ben-Hur and Messala meet after many years, I'm always anticipating that first breech in the fortress of their friendship when the young Roman tribune will have one word too many about Ben-Hur's people, taking for granted their friendship and Judah's nobility as marks of submission. The second encounter is even more thrilling because it's like watching a shaking edifice waiting to collapse.
It was a nice call from the director Wyler to mark the feud between the two ex-friends at the second encounter, hence putting more gravitas around their relationship, that screenwriter Gore Vidal tried to impregnate with homoerotic subtext. The story is known by movie buffs, Vidal wanted to make the interactions look as the two rivals were former lovers, the subtext works even more when you look at Stephen Boyd's "enamored" eyes toward Charlton Heston. But 'Chuck' never knew the trick and was annoyed about it, I guess I prefer the way their hatred epitomize the conflict between Romans and Jews sealing as one of the most memorable rivalries in history of cinema, with the most heart-pounding climactic face-to-face (or should I say wheel-to-wheel).
I had positive feelings about "Gladiator" but "Ben-Hur" is the masterpiece that dwarfs any contemporary masterpiece, a sweeping revenge story that doesn't rely at all on fake CGI and special effects. It took William Wyler's expertise built up in three decades of experience to make "Ben-Hur" equal the reference of the time that was Cecil B. De Mille's 1925 version. As a matter of fact, "Ben-Hur" has been blockbuster material from the start, ever since Lewis Wallace's best-seller of the late century, it was played on theaters and not with modest budgets. A revenge story, with galley combats, a chariot race and an oblique take on the greatest story ever told, with a hero going from idealism to anger, from revenge to love, all wrapped up in a subtle religious conversion, "Ben-Hur" was an instant classic Hollywood couldn't ignore.
If 1925 had the race and the thrills, the 1959 one had a bigger scope, bigger budget, the colors, the talking and all the determination of a big studio like MGM to prove a 50's audience that TV wasn't yet the pinnacle of spectacular entertainmnet. When I hear my Dad talking about going to the movies, like "Ben-Hur", "Spartacus", "Guns of Navarone" or "Taras Boulba" you would think he went there, inside the screen. And right now, I can't imagine the eyes of people staring at the screen during the chariot race, there comes a moment where you stop watching the moment as a plot element, but as a real race, and it never, never suspends your disbelief, it's like at any new viewing, Messalah can finally win.
There are so many classic moments that filled the three-hour-and-half journey that you're never in a state of non-anticipation, when the new inquisitor's parade starts, you keep an eye on that loose roof tile, the one that started the whole chain of events. In the desert, you wait for the 'greatest cameo ever made', in the galleys, the big fight and Ben-Hur rescuing Arrius (Jack Hawkins) and it goes on and on. I must reckon after the chariot race, the film gets a tad too long, but only because you can't just sweep off such a rich epic with a five-minute resolution, and Charlton Heston, in his greatest role, contributed a lot to the everlasting appeal of the film, I don't think he gets the credit he deserved, he brings to his Judah Ben-Hur a dimension of emotional vulnerability that could have been laughable from a lesser actor.
Other cast members include Oscar-winning Hugh Griffin enjoying his role as Arab sheikh and Judah's mentor, Israeli actress Haya Harareet as Esther, Martha Scott and Cathy O'Donnell as Judah's mother and sister... the film is served by a solid cast, editing, directing, having swept off all the major Oscar by breaking the record of 11 wins, only to be matched in 1997 with "Titanic" and "The Return of the King" and oddly enough, these titles could somewhat apply to "Ben-Hur".
I haven't seen the 'original' and I'm in no hurry for the remake, but I don't get I'll be in a minority if I say that this is the ultimate version. I didn't see it many times in my life but it's always present in my memories as if it wasn't about the number of times you watch it but the intensity of each experience. And let's not forget the name of the director: William Wyler who outdid himself by making his masterpiece, which is saying a lot, given his previous streaks.
"Ben-Hur": A Christ Tale, a tale of vengeance, in fact a tale of all tales...
pretty much sets the bar for epic entertainment
A_Different_Drummer10 March 2015
We are by nature a cynical and critical group.
With the attention span of a bumblebee, moreso the current generation than the earlier ones, because of exposure to mobile devices and other modern disposable non-repairable tech.
It is probably for that reason that epics like this one have become forgotten over time. Even the late CH has become more a societal joke and less of an icon over time. Michael Moore made Heston's participation in the NRA a joke. (If Heston's concerns over where society is headed prove to be true, the final joke may be on Moore.) Back to the film. It is almost perfect. Then, as now. The script continually builds. Modern writers could learn from that. No matter what is presently on screen as you watch, the inevitability of the final climax beckons.
The acting is perfect.
The mixture of myth and drama is perfect.
True the Roman dialog did not benefit from the verbal tricks that Stephen McKnight used in Spartacus (bending the script to match the flow of actual Roman) but it is more than enough to entertain and entrance.
From the "accident" early in the film which starts the flow of events, to the chariot race WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN EQUALLED IN THE HISTORY OF FILM, to the reunion with lost family at the end, this is one of the most powerful and entertaining films of all time
With the attention span of a bumblebee, moreso the current generation than the earlier ones, because of exposure to mobile devices and other modern disposable non-repairable tech.
It is probably for that reason that epics like this one have become forgotten over time. Even the late CH has become more a societal joke and less of an icon over time. Michael Moore made Heston's participation in the NRA a joke. (If Heston's concerns over where society is headed prove to be true, the final joke may be on Moore.) Back to the film. It is almost perfect. Then, as now. The script continually builds. Modern writers could learn from that. No matter what is presently on screen as you watch, the inevitability of the final climax beckons.
The acting is perfect.
The mixture of myth and drama is perfect.
True the Roman dialog did not benefit from the verbal tricks that Stephen McKnight used in Spartacus (bending the script to match the flow of actual Roman) but it is more than enough to entertain and entrance.
From the "accident" early in the film which starts the flow of events, to the chariot race WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN EQUALLED IN THE HISTORY OF FILM, to the reunion with lost family at the end, this is one of the most powerful and entertaining films of all time
Stunning Film That Was Worthy of 11 Oscars
tfrizzell15 March 2001
"Ben-Hur" is a dominant Best Picture Oscar winner that is perhaps more impressive now than it was when it was first released in 1959. Charlton Heston (Oscar-winning) stars as a rich Jewish nobleman during the time of Jesus Christ who is turned into a slave by the Romans after a freak accident. Now he is manning an oar in a ship's galley and his family is imprisoned. Years pass and now Heston is after the former childhood friend (Stephen Boyd), a Roman, that turned against him. The 17 minutes of footage for the chariot race is some of the best during the history of the cinema. Hugh Griffith won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar and William Wyler won his third and final Best Director Oscar. A monumental film that is great in every cinematic category known to man. 5 stars out of 5.
Weak with a couple of great set pieces and one great performance
zetes14 July 2002
For a long while, I've described Ben-Hur as the biggest film that I had not yet seen. Now I have. This is one of those classics whose status has been fading with time, and it's no wonder once you've seen the film. Sure, there are a few scenes that are very memorable, and have become part of our common culture. Who can forget the scenes where Judah Ben-Hur is a slave in the galleys, rowing fiercely as the weaker slaves collapse around him? The music in this scene is what I find particularly memorable. And then there's the chariot race, which I think cements this film as one that is worth seeing more than any other. I also like how the story is constructed, as a side story to the life of Jesus. Christ pops up every once in a while. Early in the film, there is a memorable scene where Christ defies a Roman soldier and gives the parched Ben-Hur water. When the soldier tries to reprimand him, a quick look from Jesus silences him completely. Unfortunately, a whole hell of a lot of the film is very forgettable. Each scene seems to take 25% longer than it really needs to not only are the scenes protracted far beyond their limitations, but the actors stumble slowly through their lines, as if each and every syllable was carrying the cross on its back. It gets old, and quick. The film has very little passion as it lumbers along. Most of the direction seems lackluster. Big, but mostly lacking heart. William Wyler directed one of the most emotionally touching films of all time, Mrs. Miniver, an utterly intimate affair that will stay with me forever. Ben-Hur often just sat there without trying to connect to the audience at all. The acting itself is generally weak. Charlton Heston's performance is certainly not among his best. I actually like him as an actor, but I don't think it's very good here. To be fair, his performance gets better as the film moves along. Ben-Hur's moral dilemma is intriguing, and as his desire for revenge and violence did ultimately touch me. Many of the other performances are just bad the one that comes immediately to mind is Haya Harareet as Esther, the slave girl whom Ben-Hur loves and later marries. Martha Scott and Cathy O'Donnell, who play his mother and sister respectively, are too dull to really care too much what happens to them. And I'm disappointed in Sam Jaffe, whom I love as an actor in films such as The Scarlet Empress and Gunga Din. I didn't even recognize him, he has so little energy in this film. Hugh Griffith won an Oscar for playing a sheik, but his character is not memorable at all. The only actor who really hits a home run is Stephen Boyd as Messala, Ben-Hur's childhood friend, now his bitterest enemy. He really projects his inner turmoil. Overall, I say that I am glad that I saw this finally. It may have not worked very well, but I was generally entertained. Not moved at all, but it was nice to watch (and a lot more fun to criticize!). Only the chariot sequence and a couple of Messala's scenes did anything more than that for me. 6/10.
Wonderfully epic.
filipemanuelneto1 March 2017
Some movies are so good that they just haven't age. They are timeless, like any work of art. This is one of those movies, perhaps one of the best movies ever and surely one of the biggest and most epic biblical movies ever made. The story is based on a novel by Lew Wallace (which I have read and I have at home) and is so famous that it doesn't allow spoils: the injustice committed against Judah Ben-Hur and his path of revenge, deeply linked to the life and death of Jesus, a latent and ever palpable subplot, even when it does not arise. Epic in every detail, the film features scenarios and costumes carefully crafted in the style of Imperial Rome. Some sequences are truly anthological, as is the case with the chariot race. The representation of the Roman legionaries influenced for decades the conception that we have, individually, on how they were and fought. The visual and special effects used in the film were the best there was at the time and even today, more than half a century later, they're able to surprise by the realism. The color is vivid and intense, cinematography is truly imposing and accentuates the epic ambiance. As for the cast's work, it's definitely the movie of Charlton Heston's life. He not only became famous with it but made here the most remarkable character of his career. Steven Boyd, Jack Hawkins, Haya Harareet, Martha Scott and Hugh Griffith also shone. It's a long movie, but the audience gets so caught up in it that they don't even feel the time go by. Wonderful!
Perhaps too epic for its own good
hall89529 July 2010
We begin with the birth of Jesus. And then we leave Jesus behind as we spend three and a half hours following the story of Judah Ben-Hur. Subtitle notwithstanding this is not "A Tale of the Christ". Oh Jesus pops up now and again for a few brief moments. But this is a tale of Ben-Hur. So who is this Ben-Hur fellow? Well he's a man whose life's journey goes something along the lines of wealthy Jew in Jerusalem turned galley slave turned adopted son of Roman nobleman turned champion chariot racer. Well that certainly sounds like an exciting life. But the way the story is presented doesn't make for a particularly exciting movie. This movie is quite a slog. 212 long, long, long minutes. And the sad reality is it didn't have to be this way. The movie could have so easily been streamlined to great effect. So many scenes that go on so much longer than they have to. So much time utterly wasted. This movie could have clocked in at two and a half hours without losing anything important. Instead what we get is a potentially fascinating story which, in the way it is told, ends up being somewhat monotonous. There are good reasons nobody makes three-plus hour biblical epics anymore.
This is a movie which has its moments but there is a lot of tedium along the way. The most famous sequence is of course the undeniably exciting chariot race. But even that scene serves as an example of the ways in which the movie goes wrong. The race itself is a little long but we can forgive that as by this point in the story we're looking for all the excitement we can get. But the wait for the race to actually start is interminable. The buildup as we wait for the chariots to get to the starting line goes on forever and a day. Just the most obvious example of a sequence which serves no purpose other than to bring the film's momentum to an abrupt halt. Honestly, was director William Wyler being paid by the minute? This movie screams out for an editor with the freedom to slice and dice this thing down to size. But alas that was not to be.
I suppose one has to make allowances for the time in which a movie is made. Ben-Hur clearly is a film with a style which plays much better in 1959 than it does today. It's big and grand and epic. But in so many ways too big and grand and epic for its own good. It certainly looks spectacular, making it easy to see how awards for cinematography, costume design and set decoration were among the slew of Oscars which came this film's way. It's understandable that Charlton Heston would get an Oscar for his challenging task of carrying the film over it's endless running time. I'm still trying to figure out what Hugh Griffith did to get a supporting actor Oscar though. You can see how the pieces were there to make a potentially great film. And you can see why upon its initial release it was in fact lauded as a great film. But it's not 1959 anymore. Time has been less kind to this "great film" than others of its period. In the end the movie suffers because it refuses to end. On and on and on it goes. Brief moments of excitement, long stretches of boredom. Even after the great climax of the chariot race the movie just won't stop. We get a good old-fashioned leprosy storyline which is about as appealing and entertaining as you would imagine it to be. And finally, and I do mean finally, Jesus shows up again to bookend the proceedings. No prizes for guessing how the Jesus story turns out. As for the Ben-Hur story it's one which had the potential to entertain and inspire. But the story's impact is dulled by the way in which it was told. It's a self-important epic which is too darned epic.
This is a movie which has its moments but there is a lot of tedium along the way. The most famous sequence is of course the undeniably exciting chariot race. But even that scene serves as an example of the ways in which the movie goes wrong. The race itself is a little long but we can forgive that as by this point in the story we're looking for all the excitement we can get. But the wait for the race to actually start is interminable. The buildup as we wait for the chariots to get to the starting line goes on forever and a day. Just the most obvious example of a sequence which serves no purpose other than to bring the film's momentum to an abrupt halt. Honestly, was director William Wyler being paid by the minute? This movie screams out for an editor with the freedom to slice and dice this thing down to size. But alas that was not to be.
I suppose one has to make allowances for the time in which a movie is made. Ben-Hur clearly is a film with a style which plays much better in 1959 than it does today. It's big and grand and epic. But in so many ways too big and grand and epic for its own good. It certainly looks spectacular, making it easy to see how awards for cinematography, costume design and set decoration were among the slew of Oscars which came this film's way. It's understandable that Charlton Heston would get an Oscar for his challenging task of carrying the film over it's endless running time. I'm still trying to figure out what Hugh Griffith did to get a supporting actor Oscar though. You can see how the pieces were there to make a potentially great film. And you can see why upon its initial release it was in fact lauded as a great film. But it's not 1959 anymore. Time has been less kind to this "great film" than others of its period. In the end the movie suffers because it refuses to end. On and on and on it goes. Brief moments of excitement, long stretches of boredom. Even after the great climax of the chariot race the movie just won't stop. We get a good old-fashioned leprosy storyline which is about as appealing and entertaining as you would imagine it to be. And finally, and I do mean finally, Jesus shows up again to bookend the proceedings. No prizes for guessing how the Jesus story turns out. As for the Ben-Hur story it's one which had the potential to entertain and inspire. But the story's impact is dulled by the way in which it was told. It's a self-important epic which is too darned epic.
One of the Top Five Films of All Time!
lambiepie-220 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Anyone want to know how to make a darned good EPIC remake? Then this is the film to see.
William Wyler made an epic, a film that is exciting, violent, heartfelt film. Make no mistake, it is the story of two childhood friends, one gets drunk with power and the other who was a Jewish Prince gets thrown into a life of hardship though his boyhood 'friend'. But he has faith and keeps on going. The ultimate battle to beat all battles, to settle the score...is at the Chariot race and that is a sight to behold.
Films like Ben-Hur will NEVER get greenlighted today and if it did, too much CGI and not enough of what Director Wyler and old Hollywood was good at. The actors, well, they are to die for. Excellent acting. And let me share with you my favorite part...(tee-hee) when Pilate holds up his hankerchief to start the chariot race, plays with the racers and audience - he's very smug ya know..then the WAY he finally drops it. Who couldn't tell how he'd eventually turn out, hmmmmmmm?
There is nothing more I can add that others have said. This film is near and dear to me and for my vote -- is one of the top five films of all time. I never tire of watching this film, I find something new in it every time, its done that well.
This is an epic remake, something else that Hollywood has trouble doing -- to remake a film on this scale that finds new audiences year after year, after year. Brilliant, wonderful, every bit of it. A must, must see. Just plain excellent!
William Wyler made an epic, a film that is exciting, violent, heartfelt film. Make no mistake, it is the story of two childhood friends, one gets drunk with power and the other who was a Jewish Prince gets thrown into a life of hardship though his boyhood 'friend'. But he has faith and keeps on going. The ultimate battle to beat all battles, to settle the score...is at the Chariot race and that is a sight to behold.
Films like Ben-Hur will NEVER get greenlighted today and if it did, too much CGI and not enough of what Director Wyler and old Hollywood was good at. The actors, well, they are to die for. Excellent acting. And let me share with you my favorite part...(tee-hee) when Pilate holds up his hankerchief to start the chariot race, plays with the racers and audience - he's very smug ya know..then the WAY he finally drops it. Who couldn't tell how he'd eventually turn out, hmmmmmmm?
There is nothing more I can add that others have said. This film is near and dear to me and for my vote -- is one of the top five films of all time. I never tire of watching this film, I find something new in it every time, its done that well.
This is an epic remake, something else that Hollywood has trouble doing -- to remake a film on this scale that finds new audiences year after year, after year. Brilliant, wonderful, every bit of it. A must, must see. Just plain excellent!
Epic and pretty movie, but inferior to many of its contemporary classics
zumbertinho12 March 2013
This is one of what I call the "untouchable" movies and, along with other pieces, this is very hard to rate and review, so I usually avoid that (specially because of the usual aggression that comes from people who think high of those movies). In this case there is one particular aggravation: the quantity of Academy Awards this movie got. As we all know, this is, for many people, a measure of how good a movie is or isn't. Not seeing how much the Academy Awards is biased is, at least for me, a matter of choice (and also a lack of any sense). Being biased or not in this case, and as much as I don't want to, I feel like I should say something about this movie, so here it goes.
This movie is as shallow as the ideals of those it tries to please, filled with the standard hypocrisy and bigotry you'll find in most of their minds. It's so pretensions and the acting is so hideous and corny that it's hard to believe that all of the hype around it can still exist, as you think that as time passes people would be more intelligent and critical, and would reject an abomination like this. Charlton Heston is nothing special, but he is particularly bad in this movie. This is a movie that was made to be BIG, and this is where everything revolves for it. It's an epic movie, with an epic number of extras, an epic spending on costumes and setting and equipment and an epic (debatable) soundtrack, which was specifically designed to snatch Oscars. However, from the story to the character development, this is incredibly inferior to many other epics of that time that are much more historically accurate than Ben-Hur and much better executed, with better acting and with more solid plots.
The film considers itself to be not only an epic "historical" account, but also thinks it has a deeper meaning. It relies heavily on an appeal to some values, while it tries to develop in the background a story of love, friendship and revenge. It fails miserably in all of those aspects.
It fails to convey a meaningful message because its values are devoid of any deepness and usually end up in contradictions. Thus, all of the actions that happen in the movie that are supposed to be linked with these values become meaningless: the conflict of the urge for revenge, etc. The childish notions of love and goodness that it conveys end up spoiling the movie, because this was clearly made for (and to impress.. and sorry for the bluntness).... Christians. It ends up being like a big Sunday school, with artsy cameos by JC himself (in the distance, or off screen, and never showing his face because, you know, it's more artsy that way, and it's also deep, like the "message" of this movie). Some religiosity in movies won't bother you that much, but this one just overdo it, and shows that this was clearly devised for Christian audiences.
However, it also fails in the underlining story of Ben-Hur. His love and friendship relationships do not convince, maybe because of Academy Award winner Charlton Heston's (his performance in SOYLENT GREEN is better than this one, seriously) performance, but probably because of the poor development of the characters, which the movie clearly sacrifices to try and push its values to the audience.
The costumes, the editing, everything is incredible (except the acting and the plot), and also the infamous chariot race is very well executed, so even if this movie is very slow paced it's still watchable. However, it's dull, with an acting that is hard on the eyes, and very pretentious for a movie with values so shallow and devoid of meaning.
Rating: 6,5/10 (I round ratings down)
This movie is as shallow as the ideals of those it tries to please, filled with the standard hypocrisy and bigotry you'll find in most of their minds. It's so pretensions and the acting is so hideous and corny that it's hard to believe that all of the hype around it can still exist, as you think that as time passes people would be more intelligent and critical, and would reject an abomination like this. Charlton Heston is nothing special, but he is particularly bad in this movie. This is a movie that was made to be BIG, and this is where everything revolves for it. It's an epic movie, with an epic number of extras, an epic spending on costumes and setting and equipment and an epic (debatable) soundtrack, which was specifically designed to snatch Oscars. However, from the story to the character development, this is incredibly inferior to many other epics of that time that are much more historically accurate than Ben-Hur and much better executed, with better acting and with more solid plots.
The film considers itself to be not only an epic "historical" account, but also thinks it has a deeper meaning. It relies heavily on an appeal to some values, while it tries to develop in the background a story of love, friendship and revenge. It fails miserably in all of those aspects.
It fails to convey a meaningful message because its values are devoid of any deepness and usually end up in contradictions. Thus, all of the actions that happen in the movie that are supposed to be linked with these values become meaningless: the conflict of the urge for revenge, etc. The childish notions of love and goodness that it conveys end up spoiling the movie, because this was clearly made for (and to impress.. and sorry for the bluntness).... Christians. It ends up being like a big Sunday school, with artsy cameos by JC himself (in the distance, or off screen, and never showing his face because, you know, it's more artsy that way, and it's also deep, like the "message" of this movie). Some religiosity in movies won't bother you that much, but this one just overdo it, and shows that this was clearly devised for Christian audiences.
However, it also fails in the underlining story of Ben-Hur. His love and friendship relationships do not convince, maybe because of Academy Award winner Charlton Heston's (his performance in SOYLENT GREEN is better than this one, seriously) performance, but probably because of the poor development of the characters, which the movie clearly sacrifices to try and push its values to the audience.
The costumes, the editing, everything is incredible (except the acting and the plot), and also the infamous chariot race is very well executed, so even if this movie is very slow paced it's still watchable. However, it's dull, with an acting that is hard on the eyes, and very pretentious for a movie with values so shallow and devoid of meaning.
Rating: 6,5/10 (I round ratings down)
Classy Entertainment for Italian Grandmothers in Atlantic City
LydiaOLydia25 August 2006
A lot of people complained when Russell Crowe's "Gladiator" won best picture. Not that Gladiator was bad, mind you, but rather that its simple storyline and characters seemed too, well, proletarian, for Oscar. "Oscar", those people would say, "used to be for innovative, good movies." The example of Ben Hur should prove to such people that Oscar has always had tendencies towards being the NASCAR championship of film awards. Again, it's not a bad movie. However, it relies almost entirely on three tricks to convince the Harrah's Atlantic City Bus-riding set that this is high art.
First, there was a giant budget to persuade that the film was somehow technically innovative. Throw enough money at anything and some innovation will occur, but Ben Hur was hardly groundbreaking in any significant way.
Second, you need to have plenty of throw-away lines of pseudo-philosophy. Ben Hur simply crawls with them.
Finally, to guarantee that the film would warrant being purchased in the Classy Velour-bound Boxed Set edition, it needs to have a religious element. Cameo by Jesus? Perfect! Who loves ya, baby? It's a fun film to watch because it's probably a part of the collective backgrounds of a lot of IMDb readers. And, truth be told, it is a better film than either Cleopatra or The Odyssey. However, it pales in comparison in virtually every way to Kubrick's Spartacus.
First, there was a giant budget to persuade that the film was somehow technically innovative. Throw enough money at anything and some innovation will occur, but Ben Hur was hardly groundbreaking in any significant way.
Second, you need to have plenty of throw-away lines of pseudo-philosophy. Ben Hur simply crawls with them.
Finally, to guarantee that the film would warrant being purchased in the Classy Velour-bound Boxed Set edition, it needs to have a religious element. Cameo by Jesus? Perfect! Who loves ya, baby? It's a fun film to watch because it's probably a part of the collective backgrounds of a lot of IMDb readers. And, truth be told, it is a better film than either Cleopatra or The Odyssey. However, it pales in comparison in virtually every way to Kubrick's Spartacus.
One of the greatest films of all time
SimonJack29 April 2022
"Ben-Hur" is the lavish and classic 1959 film by MGM that is based on an 1880 novel by Lew Wallace, "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ." It is a remake of MGM's 1925 silent film that had the full title of the novel. The story is a fictional adventure set in the time of Christ. The religious aspect is toned down and subtly built into this adaptation of Wallace's story, beginning with an opening scene of the nativity.
The film plot centers around the family of Judah Ben-Hur during the time the Roman Empire occupied Israel. The main characters are Judah and Messala. The latter is a Roman soldier who grew up as a boyhood friend of Judah. The Ben-Hurs were a wealthy family with a trade business. Now, in adult times the two men become enemies - until Judah's interior conversion. That occurs after chance encounters with a mysterious man. He later learns that this is Jesus of Nazareth, whom Esther and some others think may be the promised Messiah.
The film has a great cast of the day. Charlton Heston gives an Oscar-winning performance as Judah Ben-Hur. And Hugh Griffith won best supporting actor for his role of Sheik Ilderim. All of the cast excel - Jack Hawkins as Quintus Arrius, Stephen Boyd as Messala, Martha Scott as Miriam, Sam Jaffe as Simonides, Frank Thring as Pontius Pilate, and more. In its day, this film was the most expensive movie ever made, at just over $15 million. But its box office was nearly 10 times that amount. "Ben-Hur" was the first film to win 11 Oscars at the Academy Awards. Only two more films have accomplished that since then. They are "Titanic" of 1997 and "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" of 2003.
From the time MGM first announced it would remake the film in color, it took several years to get it done. It went through a number of planned casting changes, and screenplays and rewrites. If for nothing else, this movie likely always will be known for its spectacular chariot race. It took nearly a year just to plan the race, acquire the horses, build the chariots, and train and practice for the race.
At 18 acres, the race arena was the largest film set ever made to that time. It took 1,000 men a year to make the track in a rock quarry. That was done so it would look real -- like the historic circus that had been in Jerusalem. It took more than 40,000 tons of sand from the Mediterranean to cover the race track. Numerous other aspects made the chariot race so unique and unlikely ever to be repeated for real. Charlton Heston was an accomplished rider and horse handler already. But when he got to Rome he took daily three-hour lessons in chariot driving. He had special contact lenses to protect his eyes from injury by the dirt kicked up by the horses.
The chariot race is an historic feature of this film. It's not likely that modern moviemakers would ever again go to such lengths to have and film such a realistic race. Just look at the 2016 revised "Ben-Hur" film with its heavy use of CGI. The crash scenes in that chariot race are almost laughable.
This tremendous film was greatly condensed and adapted from a novel of more than 500 pages. And, the story of the book author himself, is fascinating. Lewis Wallace (1827-1905) was a man of many talents and careers. He was a soldier, a lawyer, a politician and a diplomat. His writing career overlapped all of these. Wallace served in the Mexican-American War and fought in the American Civil War. He commanded an Indiana regiment of the Union Army and took part in several battles. He later rose to the rank of Maj. General. He served nearly four years as governor of the New Mexico Territory (1878-1881). And he was U. S. minister to the Ottoman Empire from 1881 to 1885. After that he retired to continue his writing career which began with publication of his first book in 1873, "The Fair God."
Wallace wrote his adventure novel, "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ," as a story of revenge and redemption. He worked on it for several years during his military postings. When it was published in 1880, the book made Wallace famous and wealthy. It was translated into seven languages and became popular around the world. It sold more than 400,000 copies in less than a decade. By 1900, it had become the best-selling American novel of the 19th century.
This is an epic film with a message that is subtly delivered in a most entertaining package. The actors all show the right amounts of various emotions throughout. The sets and settings, and filming and color are superb in all respects. Audiences should enjoy this film for generations to come.
The film plot centers around the family of Judah Ben-Hur during the time the Roman Empire occupied Israel. The main characters are Judah and Messala. The latter is a Roman soldier who grew up as a boyhood friend of Judah. The Ben-Hurs were a wealthy family with a trade business. Now, in adult times the two men become enemies - until Judah's interior conversion. That occurs after chance encounters with a mysterious man. He later learns that this is Jesus of Nazareth, whom Esther and some others think may be the promised Messiah.
The film has a great cast of the day. Charlton Heston gives an Oscar-winning performance as Judah Ben-Hur. And Hugh Griffith won best supporting actor for his role of Sheik Ilderim. All of the cast excel - Jack Hawkins as Quintus Arrius, Stephen Boyd as Messala, Martha Scott as Miriam, Sam Jaffe as Simonides, Frank Thring as Pontius Pilate, and more. In its day, this film was the most expensive movie ever made, at just over $15 million. But its box office was nearly 10 times that amount. "Ben-Hur" was the first film to win 11 Oscars at the Academy Awards. Only two more films have accomplished that since then. They are "Titanic" of 1997 and "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" of 2003.
From the time MGM first announced it would remake the film in color, it took several years to get it done. It went through a number of planned casting changes, and screenplays and rewrites. If for nothing else, this movie likely always will be known for its spectacular chariot race. It took nearly a year just to plan the race, acquire the horses, build the chariots, and train and practice for the race.
At 18 acres, the race arena was the largest film set ever made to that time. It took 1,000 men a year to make the track in a rock quarry. That was done so it would look real -- like the historic circus that had been in Jerusalem. It took more than 40,000 tons of sand from the Mediterranean to cover the race track. Numerous other aspects made the chariot race so unique and unlikely ever to be repeated for real. Charlton Heston was an accomplished rider and horse handler already. But when he got to Rome he took daily three-hour lessons in chariot driving. He had special contact lenses to protect his eyes from injury by the dirt kicked up by the horses.
The chariot race is an historic feature of this film. It's not likely that modern moviemakers would ever again go to such lengths to have and film such a realistic race. Just look at the 2016 revised "Ben-Hur" film with its heavy use of CGI. The crash scenes in that chariot race are almost laughable.
This tremendous film was greatly condensed and adapted from a novel of more than 500 pages. And, the story of the book author himself, is fascinating. Lewis Wallace (1827-1905) was a man of many talents and careers. He was a soldier, a lawyer, a politician and a diplomat. His writing career overlapped all of these. Wallace served in the Mexican-American War and fought in the American Civil War. He commanded an Indiana regiment of the Union Army and took part in several battles. He later rose to the rank of Maj. General. He served nearly four years as governor of the New Mexico Territory (1878-1881). And he was U. S. minister to the Ottoman Empire from 1881 to 1885. After that he retired to continue his writing career which began with publication of his first book in 1873, "The Fair God."
Wallace wrote his adventure novel, "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ," as a story of revenge and redemption. He worked on it for several years during his military postings. When it was published in 1880, the book made Wallace famous and wealthy. It was translated into seven languages and became popular around the world. It sold more than 400,000 copies in less than a decade. By 1900, it had become the best-selling American novel of the 19th century.
This is an epic film with a message that is subtly delivered in a most entertaining package. The actors all show the right amounts of various emotions throughout. The sets and settings, and filming and color are superb in all respects. Audiences should enjoy this film for generations to come.
The pinnacle of film making
galahad5826 November 2005
I own over 2,000 movies on DVD or VHS. I have gone to many many more movies that have not been worthy of my collection, thus my exposure to film has been extensive. I mention this because through every film I have seen; I still come back to a film from 1959 as the greatest achievement in cinematic history. I have seen great films like: Return of the King, Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart and many more. While the modern films are wonderful and have a fantastic richness to them, they still are a "small" notch below Ben-Hur. Today's films use a lot of computer effects for their battles scenes, their backgrounds, and even computer images for the stunts of their actors. Yet, Ben-Hur did it all without computers. I am still fascinated by the chariot race. Never, in film history, has anything matched the depth and excitement of the chariot race. Remember folks, this is 1959, nothing is computer generated. Some may say the naval battle scenes look a bit cheesy, but again it was 1959 and the scenes still work today. What can you say about the acting? Every single actor is wonderful. Heston is in top form as Ben-Hur. Steven Boyd is incredible playing the merciless Messala. Jack Hawkins, Haya Harareet, Martha Scott--all fantastic in their roles. Each performing the role of a life time. The actors are fantastic, but William Wyler brings more out of each actor than any director ever could in this day and age. Wyler had no computer animation to rely on, he had no high tech special effects crew, he had no computer program to fill in extras. Wyler had to find thousands of extras for many scenes and maintain control. Did you ever see Steven Boyd better? Probably not. Did you ever see any of the actors (except Heston, who is an acting marvel) better in any other role? Wyler just pulled the greatest performance out of each actor. The story: fantastic from beginning to end. While the film is over 3 hours long, you do not feel that it is that long. Every scene is lovingly crafted: the reunion between Messala and Judah, the trek to the gallows, the rowing scene, the naval battle, the chariot race, the Messala death scene, the reunion with Judah and his family, etc. After seeing thousands and thousands of movies, I always come back to Ben-Hur. This is the mark of fantastic movie making. Today's film makers could learn a lot by watching this film and "learning" about acting, directing, and screen writing.
You never get tired watching it
mila6129 December 2016
This is simply my favorite Movie in every way, if you happen to read the Bible, than you understand the message, which is,as the Movie says (a Tale of Christ) the centerpiece of this Epic Work. You watch and cant stop wonder how they managed to create all the special effects at that time (1959), without PC's and all the kind of techniques we use today and still capture your attention from the very beginning, not to mention the music, what a magic, it's indescribably beautiful and deep, Charleston Heston, Stephen Boyd, Haya Harareet and all other actors made with their great performance this Masterpiece unforgettable, their journey through family, friendship, love, hatred, despair, suffering,revenge and finally peace, redemption and forgiveness is magical, as the Life of the Christ was and for those who believe, is, this was the first Movie I saw in theater years ago and no other ever touched me this way and we all know good Movies has been made since then, but still, this is beyond comprehension, if you are able to watch and believe in Christ with all your heart
still a gigantic achievement in epic film-making
Quinoa198411 April 2008
What distinguishes Ben-Hur as a powerful film in epic scope is not simply that it is shot and stylized and acted and executed in action sequences to iconic effect (though there is that to a degree), but that it's human dimensions stay intimate in scope. I was expecting what I had heard about with Ben-Hur, and got that- the vengeance plot, the chariot race, a story of redemption with Christ as a background figure and major presence- but I wasn't expecting such things revealed like the devastation left on a family by leprosy, and the disintegration of one's morality by the cloud of vengeance on one's mind. Even if you're not much of a Christian (and even as a non-practicing Jew as I am), there are some deep chords that are struck with the material for an audience that is going in not expecting a lot of sermonizing. Only in the final reels, as we see first-hand the 'Christ' as he is sent to die on the cross, does the film get overbearing with the symbolism and heavy weight of the circumstance of this being a "tale of the Christ."
This isn't to say also that with Judah Ben-Hur having the strife in coming to terms with his family being at first, he thinks, dead, and then later as made deformed thanks to the Roman's imprisonment, that this is all the film is. It's also grand spectacle, a film that takes you along on its epic ride with imagery that pierced the public consciousness so strongly that you've seen the scenes as parodies or referenced before you've even seen the film. Surely we have the chariot race to contend with, which has been so influential on modern action sequences and chases that Lucas copied most of the choreography for the pod race in Phantom Menace. And to give credit where it's due, you could show that same sequence in any theater today and it would unquestionably bring down the house, not just for its technical achievement but for the visceral impact (i.e. the downfall of Ben-Hur's rival by his own undoing).
But there's also other great images; possibly my favorite are the scenes with Judah Ben-Hur as #41 among the rowing slaves, all moving at the whim of the drum beat. That in and of itself would make Ben-Hur a must-see. But then there are more emotionally impactive places and settings, like the valley of the lepers, Judah's struggle across the desert (and the tastefully done angle of Jesus' back only), many others that would take too long to mention. It's all so massive a production that it's almost TOO big (according to Charlton Heston the budget, at 14 million then as the most expensive film ever made, would today cost something like 250 million), and it's a credit to William Wyler that he never makes it too dull, even as supporting characters may verge on leaning to overacting. With only calling attention to it at certain moments (and sometimes not at all with a more subtle effect), Wyler is a virtuoso here in corralling all aspects of the production under his firm handle.
And then there's Heston, who gives one of the very best of his (now late) career. He's full of bravura and gusto, and seems like a guy- for those guys who crave action film stars- who can get things done in the right mindset. But he's also excellent at conveying the tragedy of this character, a very good man with high ideals who becomes corrupted by his need to get his respite. Underneath all of that machismo and the swagger that eventually became old hat for Heston, is a strong presence at the helm of Ben-Hur. Stephen Boyd, too, is also very good as the boyhood friend turned rival. In fact, most of the actors here are very good, from Hawkins to Hazareet to Jaffe to O'Donnel and so on, as they all contribute to the epic scope. It's massive and directly concerning the efforts of then Rabbi from Nazareth to bring peace and love to humanity. Despite it being not-too-thinly veiled religious fable (and not without a couple of things noticeable as parody in Life of Brian), Ben-Hur is a great success for its time, surviving today in good, not-too-dated tact.
This isn't to say also that with Judah Ben-Hur having the strife in coming to terms with his family being at first, he thinks, dead, and then later as made deformed thanks to the Roman's imprisonment, that this is all the film is. It's also grand spectacle, a film that takes you along on its epic ride with imagery that pierced the public consciousness so strongly that you've seen the scenes as parodies or referenced before you've even seen the film. Surely we have the chariot race to contend with, which has been so influential on modern action sequences and chases that Lucas copied most of the choreography for the pod race in Phantom Menace. And to give credit where it's due, you could show that same sequence in any theater today and it would unquestionably bring down the house, not just for its technical achievement but for the visceral impact (i.e. the downfall of Ben-Hur's rival by his own undoing).
But there's also other great images; possibly my favorite are the scenes with Judah Ben-Hur as #41 among the rowing slaves, all moving at the whim of the drum beat. That in and of itself would make Ben-Hur a must-see. But then there are more emotionally impactive places and settings, like the valley of the lepers, Judah's struggle across the desert (and the tastefully done angle of Jesus' back only), many others that would take too long to mention. It's all so massive a production that it's almost TOO big (according to Charlton Heston the budget, at 14 million then as the most expensive film ever made, would today cost something like 250 million), and it's a credit to William Wyler that he never makes it too dull, even as supporting characters may verge on leaning to overacting. With only calling attention to it at certain moments (and sometimes not at all with a more subtle effect), Wyler is a virtuoso here in corralling all aspects of the production under his firm handle.
And then there's Heston, who gives one of the very best of his (now late) career. He's full of bravura and gusto, and seems like a guy- for those guys who crave action film stars- who can get things done in the right mindset. But he's also excellent at conveying the tragedy of this character, a very good man with high ideals who becomes corrupted by his need to get his respite. Underneath all of that machismo and the swagger that eventually became old hat for Heston, is a strong presence at the helm of Ben-Hur. Stephen Boyd, too, is also very good as the boyhood friend turned rival. In fact, most of the actors here are very good, from Hawkins to Hazareet to Jaffe to O'Donnel and so on, as they all contribute to the epic scope. It's massive and directly concerning the efforts of then Rabbi from Nazareth to bring peace and love to humanity. Despite it being not-too-thinly veiled religious fable (and not without a couple of things noticeable as parody in Life of Brian), Ben-Hur is a great success for its time, surviving today in good, not-too-dated tact.
The best of the "Intimate Epics"
Troydawg31 March 2000
The same quality that made epics like "Gone with the Wind," "Lawrence of Arabia," "Doctor Zhivago," and, ultimately, "Titanic" the memorable stories they were is present in spades in "Ben-Hur." These are stories, though told on canvases far vaster than the CinemaScope- or Panavision-sized movie screens they were meant for, succeed because, in their best moments, they focus on the interaction between and history of as few as two characters.
What begins as a childhood friendship between a Roman boy and a Jewish boy in Roman-occupied Palestine, becomes, briefly, a politically-charged rivalry, and ultimately, a search for revenge by one upon the other.
Charlton Heston and Stephen Boyd deliver the performances of their careers, and get to chew up scenery and sets of such grandeur that Hollywood could never afford their like again.
This film, the greatest epic film ever made, deserves every accolade heaped upon it. The modern viewer may have to apply some patience, but at the end of the nearly four hour running time will find themselves to be vastly rewarded for it. You will find your life changed by both the scale of the film and the intimate message of friendship, betrayal, revenge--and the power of forgiveness.
What begins as a childhood friendship between a Roman boy and a Jewish boy in Roman-occupied Palestine, becomes, briefly, a politically-charged rivalry, and ultimately, a search for revenge by one upon the other.
Charlton Heston and Stephen Boyd deliver the performances of their careers, and get to chew up scenery and sets of such grandeur that Hollywood could never afford their like again.
This film, the greatest epic film ever made, deserves every accolade heaped upon it. The modern viewer may have to apply some patience, but at the end of the nearly four hour running time will find themselves to be vastly rewarded for it. You will find your life changed by both the scale of the film and the intimate message of friendship, betrayal, revenge--and the power of forgiveness.
Hampered in the Home Stretch
maf-303638 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
First 2 hours - 8/10
Third hour - 9/10
Final hour - 3/10
The final hour (following the race) plodded along so painfully that a film on track for a 9/10 only an hour before was turning into a 6 or perhaps even a 5.
It settles around a 7 for its visual superlatives and mostly good direction, but is far from perfect and leaves a startingly negative taste with its final hour.
The final hour (following the race) plodded along so painfully that a film on track for a 9/10 only an hour before was turning into a 6 or perhaps even a 5.
It settles around a 7 for its visual superlatives and mostly good direction, but is far from perfect and leaves a startingly negative taste with its final hour.
Human Drama, Grand Spectacle, Moving Divinity
CubsandCulture4 November 2018
This film is so much more than the chariot race. Undoubtedly, that is the most famous sequence and for good reason. It is stunning, electric, tense and the so very exciting. There is nothing like simply seeing a chariot race unfold by actually filming a group a chariots. But the sequence is filled with meaning because the film spends so much time building up the personal relationship between Judah and Messala; their hatred for each other displayed in the chariot race is alive and bitter. Because we have seen them expressing deep kinship and spiritual love.
There is a famous dispute between Wyler and Vidal about how much of the Judah-Messala relationship was intended to have a subtext of a gay jilted lovers. I think to dwell on that is to sort of miss the point. While it it is really easy to read an erotic love (especially on Messala's part) between the two it is clear that spiritual love is present in anycase. The erotic element is present if one cares to look but it is not needed. There is clearly an emotional intimacy between the two. This intimacy gets soured by politics. The story is richer, deeper and more personal as a result.
Richer is a good word for this movie. It is nearly 4 hours long but it is a fully fleshed out epic that engages the entire time. I rather enjoyed how the Christian themes are restrained-You never see Christ's face, you only hear what he says second hand etc.-it makes the film feel about Jesus of Nazareth and not necessarily Jesus Christ. I feel like it makes the film more accessible to nonChristians while Christians can infer what the wish. Biblical epics can often be very stuffy and overwrought. Wyler's use of deep focus really gives the film a feel of intimate epicness. The scope is grand; the focus personal,
Wyler was a very good filmmaker; this is something of a departure for him. Nonetheless this film is still the work of a master.
There is a famous dispute between Wyler and Vidal about how much of the Judah-Messala relationship was intended to have a subtext of a gay jilted lovers. I think to dwell on that is to sort of miss the point. While it it is really easy to read an erotic love (especially on Messala's part) between the two it is clear that spiritual love is present in anycase. The erotic element is present if one cares to look but it is not needed. There is clearly an emotional intimacy between the two. This intimacy gets soured by politics. The story is richer, deeper and more personal as a result.
Richer is a good word for this movie. It is nearly 4 hours long but it is a fully fleshed out epic that engages the entire time. I rather enjoyed how the Christian themes are restrained-You never see Christ's face, you only hear what he says second hand etc.-it makes the film feel about Jesus of Nazareth and not necessarily Jesus Christ. I feel like it makes the film more accessible to nonChristians while Christians can infer what the wish. Biblical epics can often be very stuffy and overwrought. Wyler's use of deep focus really gives the film a feel of intimate epicness. The scope is grand; the focus personal,
Wyler was a very good filmmaker; this is something of a departure for him. Nonetheless this film is still the work of a master.
Funny how subtexts change over time ...
a-ja14 February 2006
When the movie was made British actors were chosen to play the Roman occupying forces, and Americans to play the oppressed Jews - considering their roots, that would of course appeal to Americans. But things have changed from a time when Americans would see themselves as "good guys" in the Cold War. Being the one Rome-like superpower, it's the United States' turn to impose an empire's glory upon the world whether those countries with unhealthy climates want it or not. When I watched the movie the other day parallels with the current situation in Iraq were so obvious that I found the movie quite subversive and amusing - not what you would expect from "Ben Hur".
Deserved All The Honors
ccthemovieman-18 November 2005
Wow, what can you say about a film that won 11 Academy Awards back in the days where the best films actually were honored, not the garbage they salute today.
In other words, this film lives up to its reputation and has to be ranked as one of the most memorable movies of all time. Nobody who ever saw this film ever forgot the chariot race, for instance, perhaps the greatest action scene filmed without special effects.
This can be a very sad film as well. I doubt if I've ever watched this without a few tears in my eyes at certain points. The scenes with hero's mother and sister suffering with leprosy are still some of the most heart-wrenching scenes I've ever witnessed on film. They can just tear you apart.
The combination of drama, action and romance, along with very involving storyline is aided by an incredible soundtrack, once again one of the best ever put on film. The more one hears this music, the more was is moved by it.
To fully appreciate the cinematography in this film I recommend you purchase the recently-released 4-disc DVD special edition which also includes the first rendition of this story, the silent movie "Ben-Hur: A Tale Of The Christ." That was name of the book, by the way, the second part of the title being left off the 1959 movie as Hollywood slowly began deemphasizing Christianity in films. However, there is a reverence for Jesus Christ in this film, which should be there since it's a key element of the storyline, even though most folks forget that.
In summary, this is about as good an example as ever found of what is labeled an "epic" movie. It's an incredible story transferred memorably on screen.
In other words, this film lives up to its reputation and has to be ranked as one of the most memorable movies of all time. Nobody who ever saw this film ever forgot the chariot race, for instance, perhaps the greatest action scene filmed without special effects.
This can be a very sad film as well. I doubt if I've ever watched this without a few tears in my eyes at certain points. The scenes with hero's mother and sister suffering with leprosy are still some of the most heart-wrenching scenes I've ever witnessed on film. They can just tear you apart.
The combination of drama, action and romance, along with very involving storyline is aided by an incredible soundtrack, once again one of the best ever put on film. The more one hears this music, the more was is moved by it.
To fully appreciate the cinematography in this film I recommend you purchase the recently-released 4-disc DVD special edition which also includes the first rendition of this story, the silent movie "Ben-Hur: A Tale Of The Christ." That was name of the book, by the way, the second part of the title being left off the 1959 movie as Hollywood slowly began deemphasizing Christianity in films. However, there is a reverence for Jesus Christ in this film, which should be there since it's a key element of the storyline, even though most folks forget that.
In summary, this is about as good an example as ever found of what is labeled an "epic" movie. It's an incredible story transferred memorably on screen.
Worth One Watch...Repeated Viewings Not Recommended
LeonLouisRicci15 December 2013
It's not that this overrated marathon of a Movie gets worse with age, it gets worse with each repeated viewing. The length and sobriety of it all gets more glaring each time this Blockbuster and Oscar Hog is attempted.
The Film's Glorious Production is Worthy of its reputation and it is only this that makes more than one viewing tolerable, but attempt at Your own risk. The meandering Story is terribly Edited and drawn out to painful lengths and stagnant Acting.
It looks gorgeous and the Musical Score is fine. The darn thing just needs some severe trimming, but in 1959 it was not to be and future Audiences are stuck both with this Obese, obsessively self-righteous, pious Picture that cheats on the "Tale of the Christ" and lumbers its way along with Judah Ben-Hur as He discovers that the "Sword has been taken from my hand".
But not until His Boyhood Chum turned Jailer is dispensed with via the only thing in this Movie that remains Today as it was in its Day, the famous compelling and exciting Chariot Race. Everything else here drags to tedium. The best example of this is the Leper episode, that just doesn't know when to say enough is enough.
Definitely worth one watch and repeated viewings come with the above warning.
The Film's Glorious Production is Worthy of its reputation and it is only this that makes more than one viewing tolerable, but attempt at Your own risk. The meandering Story is terribly Edited and drawn out to painful lengths and stagnant Acting.
It looks gorgeous and the Musical Score is fine. The darn thing just needs some severe trimming, but in 1959 it was not to be and future Audiences are stuck both with this Obese, obsessively self-righteous, pious Picture that cheats on the "Tale of the Christ" and lumbers its way along with Judah Ben-Hur as He discovers that the "Sword has been taken from my hand".
But not until His Boyhood Chum turned Jailer is dispensed with via the only thing in this Movie that remains Today as it was in its Day, the famous compelling and exciting Chariot Race. Everything else here drags to tedium. The best example of this is the Leper episode, that just doesn't know when to say enough is enough.
Definitely worth one watch and repeated viewings come with the above warning.
Doesn't do the novel justice.
alan-46721 September 2021
This review contains only very minor spoilers.
I've only seen this version of the movie (I believe there are others from 1925 and 2016). It isn't a bad movie, though the acting of most of the main characters is atrocious (Stephen Boyd as Messala, and Jack Hawkins as Quintus Arrius being honourable exceptions) but is very slow, especially considering that much of the novel was omitted or changed. The book, though initially hard to read, is, quite simply, the best book I've ever read, and I say that as a committed atheist. It could easily have been made into a trilogy of 2-hour movies, each with much faster pacing than this one, with a better beginning and conclusion. The main faults I have with this movie are :-
1. Balthasar, Simonides and Malluch were important characters justifying much of the plot in the book, but were only minor characters in the movie.
2. Judah's unchaining from his galley bench was logically explained in the book, but seemed completely illogical in the movie.
3. Judah's infatuation with Iras (Balthasar's daughter) was completely absent, together with her admiration for Messala. I guess that the budget didn't stretch to hiring a beautiful big-name female star.
4. Messala didn't die straight after the chariot race in the book, but attempted to organise the assassination of Judah - why change it?
5. Miriam & Tirzah's cure from leprosy was explained much more logically in the book as a miracle resulting from an act of faith, rather than as a miracle concurrent with Jesus's death (remember, I don't believe in miracles anyway).
In summary, probably worth seeing at least once, then read the book, being patient for the first few chapters.
I've only seen this version of the movie (I believe there are others from 1925 and 2016). It isn't a bad movie, though the acting of most of the main characters is atrocious (Stephen Boyd as Messala, and Jack Hawkins as Quintus Arrius being honourable exceptions) but is very slow, especially considering that much of the novel was omitted or changed. The book, though initially hard to read, is, quite simply, the best book I've ever read, and I say that as a committed atheist. It could easily have been made into a trilogy of 2-hour movies, each with much faster pacing than this one, with a better beginning and conclusion. The main faults I have with this movie are :-
1. Balthasar, Simonides and Malluch were important characters justifying much of the plot in the book, but were only minor characters in the movie.
2. Judah's unchaining from his galley bench was logically explained in the book, but seemed completely illogical in the movie.
3. Judah's infatuation with Iras (Balthasar's daughter) was completely absent, together with her admiration for Messala. I guess that the budget didn't stretch to hiring a beautiful big-name female star.
4. Messala didn't die straight after the chariot race in the book, but attempted to organise the assassination of Judah - why change it?
5. Miriam & Tirzah's cure from leprosy was explained much more logically in the book as a miracle resulting from an act of faith, rather than as a miracle concurrent with Jesus's death (remember, I don't believe in miracles anyway).
In summary, probably worth seeing at least once, then read the book, being patient for the first few chapters.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
