VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) Most people know Lew Wallace's tale of Ben Hur mostly from the movie starring Charlton Heston, but there are other versions out there too, several of them considerably older. This one here may be the first and it was released shortly after the death of the aforementioned author almost 110 years ago. Unfortunately, if you don't know the story, you will have absolutely no clue what is going on. It is a black-and-white silent film and intertitles are basically non-existent here, which makes it impossible to understand the plot. This is also why I cannot recommend this one. There are films from the 19th century that are considerably better than this one and the only area where it sort-of delivers are the costumes I guess. Thumbs down. Don't watch.

Rodrigo Amaro What can be said about 1907 version of "Ben Hur", the first filmed version of the story? If I say something good it will never be good enough to make people feel interested on watching it; and if I say something bad it's gonna be the same sensation of kicking someone who's dead, pointless. With all that in mind I won't give any stars to this short film but I will do write about his failures, technical problems and the challenge this film has to really become a good work. The story is reduced to a 15 minutes film so the director had the problem of filming a detailed account about Ben Hur; it is difficult to see or hear something, the quality of the lasting film is very very poor; the acting is invisible, although William S. Hart has a role in the film. The worst part of all is the editing of the chariot scene because during the silent film era that camera didn't move, it was sustained by a tripod and everything was so distant from it, so when the chariot race begins you see something laughable, the horses appearing and disappearing over and over again until Ben Hur wins the race. And I must compare this little film with the 11 Oscar winner "Ben Hur" (1959). The classic directed by William Wyler is amazing in everything, and in every possible way you might want to watch it. DVD, VHS, downloading on the net, TV, cable TV, projection, CinemaScope, whatever, that is a truly great picture that is always good. The movie had everything better than this silent version. It's a fair comparison? Not at all but it's the only way you can have an opinion on things. We must praise the 1907 film because it managed to survive (badly although) the time, the movie exists and even more than 100 years old people can watch it and say something about it. Back then when the movie was released it was just a form of taking money from people to see something different on the screen. I don't know if the producers got back the U$500 of investment, but all I know is that they were sued because they infringed author's copyright. To me it was a boring experience to stare the screen for a few minutes. The movie didn't took off at all. For those interested in the early days of filmmaking it's an (un)interesting opportunity for you to see something different. Otherwise just laugh about it if you can.

Boba_Fett1138 With a book consisting out of 558 and other movie versions that last well over two hours, the creators of this movie thought that they could put the entire story of Ben-Hur into a 15 minute silent short. No big surprise here that the end result is very muddled and story, directing and acting is pretty much non-existent in this movie.This movie version is known because it was the very first movie based on the 1880 Lew Wallace novel but its better known for being made without permission of the author's estate. This wasn't an uncommon thing by the way for its time and studios were constantly making movies based on novels without the proper permission of its copyright holders. As result of it, the author's estate successfully suit the studios for copyright infringement.Needless to say that this movie is a waste of one fine story. The one moment Ben-Hur is enslaved, 10 seconds later he's a free man again and 20 seconds later he's right in the middle of the chariot race. Of course the story doesn't ever flow and it you aren't really familiar with the Ben-Hur story, you'll have a hard time understanding what is going on in this movie.The movie mainly consists out of people raising their hands and walking around. The camera at all times remain at one position (yes even during the chariot race), making this movie looking very staged. It doesn't help much that the movie uses very limited sets and extra cast members. Basically its a group of, lets say, 20 people that are constantly on screen.Nevertheless the movie credits two actors for playing the two lead roles of Ben-Hur and Messala. This doesn't however mean that there is being acted in this movie though. A bit of a shame maybe, since the actor portraying Messala is William S. Hart, who was a real Shakespearean actor and later became one of the earliest and best known western actors in the late '10's and early '20's. He actually was a real life friend of legendary Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson and was one of the pallbearers at Wyatt Earp's funeral, along with other and bigger early western movie star in 1929. Well, let me say that this little piece of history is actually far more interesting than actually this movie.Hardly watchable for a movie, not even for historical sake.3/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

wes-connors In Biblical times, Jerusalem rebels under Roman rule. After an (unfortunately staged) accident fells a Roman soldier, Herman Rottger (as Ben Hur) is taken into custody. William S. Hart (as Messala) orders Mr. Rottger become a slave. Soon, Rottger wins freedom, and seeks revenge against Mr. Hart, in a "Chariot Race". For the famed Chariot Race, the two stars simply ride by a stationary camera, while costumed people cheer.The good folks at Kalem (the film company responsible) were counting on viewers to have either seen "Ben-Hur" on stage, or read the Lew Wallace book. And, undoubtedly, most 1900s flicker watchers had the prior knowledge necessary to understand the action. This film highlights the inferiority of the medium, at that time. Director Olcott and Gene Gauntier, who was credited with having written the "Ben Hur" scenario, would have much greater artistic success with films like "From the Manger to the Cross" (1912). ** Ben Hur (12/7/07) Sidney Olcott, Frank Rose ~ Herman Rottger, William S. Hart