I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Admirable film.

A Disappointing Continuation

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

This 'unauthorized' (i.e., made without paying proper royalties) version of "Ben Hur" is exceptionally early. I say this because huge spectacle films were still in the near future--so I was not surprised that this one came off as VERY choppy and the big scenes came off as ridiculously simple (such as the chariot race--it is VERY underwhelming). And, because of this, it's an incredibly unappealing little film. In other words, instead of telling a coherent story, it's like a very brief highlights reel--filled with a few brief clips from the famed story by General Lew Wallace but not telling any sort of narrative. If you think about it, the famed 1959 version by William Wyler was about three hours long. This 1907 version is about 10 minutes!! Audiences at the time could have only enjoyed it if they knew the story already.

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

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.

I saw the first (1907) Ben Hur about 25 years ago in a film society back to back double feature with the Charlton Heston version. My memories are therefore fragmentary.The film should be called "Illustrated scenes from the life of Ben Hur" as it really doesn't try to tell the story in the time available. If you hadn't read the book you wouldn't know what was going on. One of my recollections is my wife nudging me and saying "there's the tile that's going to fall". Above the rather pathetic and bored looking extras (showing off their knees in Roman army costume) one roof tile was very different from the rest - it wasn't painted onto the set!! Sure enough, Ben Hur leaned rather obviously on this brick.The chariot race sticks in my mind too. A bunch of extras starts jumping up and down and two chariots race by the camera. The extras calm down and look bored for a while then start jumping up and down for the next rapid pass of two chariots. I can't remember how many times this was repeated, we were all laughing so hard that tears were running down my face.It is mercifully short, and interesting to compare with the 1925 big budget spectacular (also silent of course) which foreshadows the third version with amazing special effects.