Helloturia I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

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.

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

preppy-3 Silly short silent is NOT "Ben-Hur". It's highlights from the book with cards filling in the (many) gaps. The sets are cardboard cut-outs (pretty obviously), ALL the acting is bad and the "direction" is virtually nonexistent. I suppose it's got some historical value as the very first version of the story but is totally lacking in entertainment value. See it for laughs only.

reptilicus BEN HUR might seem an ambitious undertaking for the early days of the cinema but consider that by 1899 there had already been 2 filmed versions of H. Rider Haggard's SHE and 1 of Oscar Wilde's THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY. The early 1900's saw early attempts at A TALE OF TWO CITIES, THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO and or course BEN HUR. The costumes are nice but I doubt the painted canvas backdrops convinced anyone even way back in 1906. The story is intact, as much as a single reel (12 minutes) will allow. In this version Hur does not get sent to the galleys; it is the chariot race which will decide if he is condemned as a criminal or not. Oh yes, even this early version has a chariot race and it is set up to be the highpoint of the picture. Alas, don't expect much in the way of special effects. This race has only two participants, Ben Hur and Massala, and they simply run their chariots around and around a camera which never moves. We all know how the story ends. The panorama, or "pan" shot was in use as early as 1896 when it was invented by an Venitian gondolier named Promio who put a camera in his boat to take a long shot of Venice as seen from the canal. The closeup was around in 1907 as evidenced by a short called MR. HURRY-UP OF NEW YORK but neither accomplishment is seen in this film. It's almost a certainty that audiences were easier to please then, at least they were for a little while, and for its time this version of BEN HUR did indeed offer more than the average one reel short. We are lucky that this version, and so many other early films survive to show us that filmmakers even back then were willing to take chances. At the time nobody knew that a fellow named D.W. Griffith was waiting in the wings gathering experience and developing some ideas of his own.