Ben-Hur : Which chariot race was better? 1959 or 2016

Obviously, this post is only for those who saw both movies. (Seeing only the trailer doesn't count.)

What about the 1907 and 1925 movies?

The 1925 chariot race WAS better than the 1959 race IMO (I haven't seen this version and can only wonder WHY spend the 100 million for an essentially hackneyed story). Anyway, the race was truly amazing cinematography for the time (or for any time) and for the equipment available (very cumbersome and low performing) .

Yes, but it has the value of being a pioneer work of it's day. It's always nice to see what cinema was like in it's early stages, they did the best with what they had. Of course, the 1907 version looks like a play more than a movie. I like the 2016 version, it gives all the racers personalities while in the 1959 version, they were just pawns trying to survive.

To be honest, I didn't like it either(if you take off the historical value of an early film that is the first camera adaptation of a novel. It left out my favorite part of the story, Jesus.

1925. I was there.

For its time, 1959's race I imagine was groundbreaking and it's still a cool sequence, but purely by now I'd go with the 2016 version as more exciting.

However, outside of the action sequences (the clear highlight of this new movie), the 1959 film is better in just about every way.

One review said that no shot in the chariot race lasts more than 2-3 seconds. Also it's been mentioned that we never get a sense of the other competitors or the whole field, so it sounds like no March of the Charioteers or worries about the fate of the other drivers. No upending the fish to mark the turns so there's no sense of where we are in the race.

There's so much cool in the 1959 version before the race even starts. The parade, the sweep of the sand, Pilate messing with the audience as he takes his time dropping the scarf.

Dawn of the Dead Renake is the best zombie movie ever made. It also had better acting and menacing zombies.

Gotta disagree about Dawn of the Dead. I not only thought that was the best horror remake I've seen (or at least top 3 with The Thing and The Fly) but the best zombie film as well. It may be fashionable now to bash Zack Snyder because of Batman v Superman, but I really thought he did a brilliant job with Dawn of the Dead.

my OLD-FASHIONED ATTENTION SPAN CAN LAST MORE THAN 15 SECONDS per edit.
___________________
Exactly IY! They even had the zombies run fast in the remake of DOTD, so the millennials with brain cells of a fart wouldn't get bored and it's run time is shorn of about 30mins compared to Romero's original 78' classic.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:

Dawn of the Dead. I not only thought that was the best horror remake I've seen (or at least top 3 with The Thing and The Fly) but the best zombie film as well.
____________________
I love horror, but I wasn't that impressed with the remake of DOTD. Snyder tried to do something a bit different and while the intention was good, it just didn't connect with me. I won't even own a copy. The Thing-11' was not a remake either, it was a prequel to the original and fobbed off as a remake and is pretty average. As for The Fly-86', very good; but I enjoyed The Fly II-89' even more.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:

---

It may be fashionable now to bash Zack Snyder because of Batman v Superman

---

I never liked Zack Snyder. I never liked the DOTD remake that much. Average. There are a couple of interesting things in the screenplay, but I assume that was James Gunn. And DOTD is my favourite Snyder film. It's a 5 to me.

---

Dawn of the Dead. I not only thought that was the best horror remake I've seen (or at least top 3 with The Thing and The Fly) but the best zombie film as well

---

As far as zombies go I have to disagree too ROTLD, RTOTLD2, The whole Romero "of the dead" series, Braindead, Creepshow, Wyrmwood, The Dead Next Door, 28 Days later, Shaun of the Dead, Warm Bodies all better IMO. And those are the first few that come to mind.

There is upending of the fish to mark position in the race, and the other charioteers do get intro shots, but no march.

The editing does get a bit frantic in the film at times, but I don't think it's anywhere near say Jason Bourne, and probably the most fast paced editing is in the sea battle and I always found the chariot race easy to follow.

Again, if any comparison of the chariot races is made, the 1925 version should, must be included. This was no cheapie affair; no expense was spared in making this scene as full-scale as possible. A never-before-used amount of 42 cameras were put up. Kevin Brownlow likened it to the 'Odessa Steps' scene in BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN as an effective and influential piece of the cinema. It held its own in comparison to the 1959 version after all these years, and shouldn't be ignored.

---

Again, if any comparison of the chariot races is made, the 1925 version should, must be included.

---

I agree with every single word you stated. If I hear anything about the Niblo movie it is about the Chariot race and how so much work was put into it to make it. I cannot see any comparisons made about Ben Hur without the inclusion of that race. Thalberg took over production made Niblo the director. He was known for his action movies and paid 100 dollars to the winner of the Chariot race. I do not think the Ben Hur with made in 59 race was better.

I saw the fish in the 2016 version marking the progress of the race.

---

Does the remake have the hyper editing where you cannot focus on an image longer than 2 seconds? That is not progressive, but annoying.

---

yes.

The 1959 chariot race is superior, largely for one of the major reasons why the overall 1959 film is superior: it takes its time. There is a sense of precision and elegance to the 1959 race's staging and editing which creates greater impact, tension, and memorable imagery.

The 2016 version, I suppose, is striving to create a sense of realism or dynamism, but the results feel chaotic, overly slick, and lack distinction.

My thoughts exactly!!! This remake stripped the movie of everything that made the 1959 adaptation a classic!
Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will worry about itself

Lets see the REAL thing vs CGI, which is better? Give me the REAL thing.

If you think it's mostly CGI..,,,,

I think the 1925 version is still the most spectacular.

Watch it here (with comments)





On Twitter https://twitter.com/RickAtTheMovies

Thank you for sharing! Amazing how they managed that in 1925.

While the Chariot race in the highlight of both films the '59 version is way better. Not only for the race itself but the build up and the pageantry that is pretty much missing from the 2016 version. I felt Star Wars, The Phantom Menace actually did a better job capturing this with the build up to the pod race. Small moments like the tension of the false start, Messala showing off the spiked wheels of his chariot, the way Pilate holds his salute longer than anyone and scowls over the crowd are missing. The 2016 race isn't bad, I jumped out of my seat twice. It just feels rushed.

When Hur is victorious in the '59 version, he runs to his horses and kisses the lead. It's one on my favorite small moments in the film. In the '16 version this scene plays out quite differently. In the '59 we are allowed to share Judah's triumph before he realizes how hollow the victory was. In the new version this realization is made instantly.

After watching all three movies, 1925, 1959 and this one, there's no doubt that the best one by far is 1959. Not only it isn't full of CGI, it is very much more beliavable, it is the one truest to the book, and it isn't a total nonsense like the one from the new film.

I have never seen the 1925 film, but I am really surprised to find that the action scenes of the present remake - not only the chariot race but also the sea battle - to be inferior to the 1959 film, though I suppose one important motive of the filmmakers was to make them "better" with the help of CGI and other new technology.

In the sea battle, when I saw the 1959 film on TV as a kid, I was impressed by the opposing fleets hurling fireballs at each other. I guess the commanding galley might have been a full-scale replica and the rest were models. In the new remake, there was not even one scene of a galley sailing at sea! We never saw the two fleets approaching each other. We heard someone yelling that the Ionian pirates were boarding the galley but saw none of them - so no fighting scenes either. What a letdown!

The chariot race, like the sea battle, mistook confusion and shaking cameras for excitement. Those scenes had to be fast by necessity, but the 1959 film managed to keep us aware what was happening - who was competing with or overtaking whom, etc., and what eventually happened to each of the competitors. In the new remake, each scene lasted less than five seconds and one hardly knew what was happening. I read that most of the scenes were not CGI, and so could only conclude that they did a bad job with the filming and editing.

Also, some of the scenes were just silly. The Morgan Freeman character yelled at Ben-Hur to "stay back" (read: slow down) presumably because he knew Messala was up to some tricks. That might be good if the motive was to stay safe, but what a way to try to win a race! In another scene, Ben-Hur was thrown out of his chariot and was dragged some ten feet behind it, but somehow managed to get back in and all the while the horses did not go out of control. Not even Arnold's action motives would have a scene so ridiculous.

No comparison2016 outdoes 1959 by miles. I liked 1959 when it first came out but it is dated.

Just saw the movie in 3D. The chariot race was pretty awesome. I've not seen any of the other versions, however.

1959 > 1925 > 2016

All three are incredibly awesome though.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

The IOC should bring Chariot Racing back to the Olympics.

Having seen both versions mentioned, I would have to say surprisingly; it is a tie. The 2016 chariot scene was absolutely spellbinding; they filmed it in a way that you feel like you are actually in the race, rather than watching it; and i did not see the 3-D version. I thought it was incredibly intense. Of course it goes without saying, the 59 version is mind blowing as well, especially considering the time it was made. Actually the chariot race is so similar in both films that it is hard to compare. Personally I greatly enjoyed the opportunity to see such a spectacle on the large screen. I'm very curious now, what this 4-D version with moving seats and vibrating theater is like; i think it might actually be too much

Fabio Testi is GOD

The 2016. The strategy is much better explained by the Sheik character beforehand, therefore allowing you to better understand the race.

Both 1959 and 2016 have a lot of advantages in all areas, including the race. In both films, the race was a crucial piece of tension between Ben-Hur and Messala.

In 1959, the character of Messala is more merciless, and his spiked wheel and cruelty add to the peril. 2016 Messala was more sympathetic, and the deaths caused by him are as random as any other.

That said, 1959 version captures the randomness of deaths a bit more, since 2016 version has a moment or two of expecting the death as it comes. Both versions have captured the grittiness of demises, though.

2016 version has maybe even more emphasis to the race, since it happens nearer the ending and Messala/Hur relationship is more crucial than Hur's inner debates of saving his mother and sister.

Ending of the race is also way more different; In 1959 the victory is more glorious, and it goes along with the still more proud Ben-Hur, who is not only a Roman son himself, but also someone who didn't yet realized the power of forgiveness. IN 2016 version, Ben-Hur already started to feel guilty and see the perversity of the mass chanting his name, hence the scene is more bitter-sweet than straight-up victory.

Visually speaking, both races are top of the special/graphic effects of their time and should be respected for the effort put into it. 1959 version wins that one by a smidge, simply because at that time, the level of effects was more groundbreaking.