One of the BEST movies ever made BUT better than 1925 version???

Rating: 10/10 (18 September 2004)

The 1959 version of Ben Hur is, probably, the most famous of all Hollywood greatest productions. It is so because of so many Oscars that this movie got. Indeed, it is a classic. I have seen it 4 times and dream to see it at least once again.
Almost everything is perfect in the movie. Photography, cast, filming locations, music, visual effects... However, there are two factors that I would like to concentrate on because I consider them significant to share with readers. It is the choice of Stephen Boyd as Messala and some lack of originality in some scenes and their striking similarity to another version of BEN HUR.
The reference to my comparison is the 1925 silent version by Fred Niblo, the most expensive silent film ever made, and, I think, one of the best silents, appreciated even today, 80 years later, by a number of people. Comparing Stephen Boyd's interpretation of cruel Messala to Francis X.Bushman's in the silent movie proves a huge discrepancy. They are so different that there are only deeds (according to the book) and the name that make them one character. Stephen Boyd did not show Messala's antisemitism so well as Mr Bushman did. Bushman seems to have been, for me personally, a better choice for Messala. His nose and height make him a more stereotypical Roman. All other cast are similar, equally good in both versions. I love the performance of Charlton Heston (maybe even better than Ramon Novarro in 1925), famous for biblical epics of the 1950s and 1960s. Haya Harareet also gives a memorable performance as Esther, and Jack Hawkins is absolutely great as Quintus Arius.
Another striking factor that needs to be noticed is that there are a lot of scenes in this version of Ben Hur that almost "copy" the 1925 version. The sea battle, chariot race (equally gorgeous), and the moments with Jesus are SIMILAR! But it does not mean that they are worse in this version. What I want to stress is that both versions have much in common in their images.
Not to bore you with so much comparison with 1925 version, indeed, this version of Ben Hur is great. Of course it deserves the awards due to the great story, and other factors that I enumerated before. However, I would recommend everyone to see both versions and not to be afraid to compare them. Perhaps, someone will infer that they could make an equal masterpiece 80 years ago... I do recommend you to see both versions.