Rating: 
Summary: ANOTHER GREAT BIBLICAL EPIC
Review: I think this movie is one of the best because it's full of deeply moving moments, and spectacular acting by Jeffrey Hunter and other people. As you might have noticed the actor for Herid the second is also the actor for Ponchus Pilot in Ben-Hur.This movie is special because it shows the miracles Jesus did, and it shows diferent point of views from diferent people not just Jesus.My favorite scene in the movie is The Sermon on the Mount.In this scene I think Jesus says his most memerable lines, and it includes the first ever lords prayer. Overall it's a great film, and i'd reccomend it to anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: All I ever had and still a sentimental favorite
Review: I first saw the King of Kings as a young girl on the big screen where everything seems to translate better, for example; those close-ups of Hunter's piercing blue eyes but since I have become a more 'mature, well-read person' this rendition of the life of Christ is pretty heavy handed with Roman history, for example, Tiberius never had a daughter as portrayed by Viveca Lindfors. The Romans were invited in to settle a dispute/civil war that had been ensuing over the appointment of High Priest and this underscores what a long bloody graveyard Israel has been for sometime. BUT the absolute beauty, 50% of the movie is the score written by the genius Miklos Rozsa and though the Zefferelli masterpiece "Jesus of Nazareth" is a far more intelligent portrayal, the King of Kings carries great emotional weight for me personally. I highly recommend it. It still holds itw own desite its shortcomings.
Rating:
Summary: The life and death of Jesus from a political perspective
Review: The 1961 remake of "King of Kings" (it was originally a 1927 silent film) is the most political of the Hollywood epics on the life of Jesus, a genre that would include "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and "Jesus of Nazareth" but not "The Last Temptation of Christ" or "The Passion of the Christ." By "political" I mean that Jesus is born into what is clearly a political world. The film begins with Pompey the Great, the Roman conqueror of Israel, profaning the Temple. The Jews are presented as an enslaved people, put to work in quarries to produce the stone for Roman monuments, making it seem like we are covering the same ground as "The Ten Commandments." Herod the Great is presented as being an Arab who is installed as the "King of the Jews" and who crucifies hundreds of his rebellious subjects. Pilate (Hurd Hatfield) is apparently married to the daughter of the Emperor Tiberius, and therefore has aspirations of becoming the next Caesar. Pilate and Herod Antipas (Frank Thring), along with their wives, apparently eat dinner together every night. "King of Kings" also has the distinction of having the biggest battle scene in a movie about Jesus as the men of Barabbas (Harry Guardino), pointedly called patriots and not zealots, attack a column of Roman centurions. At one point Pilate asks, "How many men does he have?" The centurion replies, "God, Jesus or Barabbas?" "Barabbas," answers Pilate. The Jews are clearly a political problem for the Roman procurator, who is offended that Jerusalem is bedecked with statues of the Roman gods. When I watched this film again today it seemed clear to me that screenwriter Philip Yordan is not happy with the story found in the Gospels and keeps creating new scenes. John the Baptist (Robert Ryan) goes to see Mary (Siobhan McKenna) and Jesus goes to visit John in prison (so much for the rather sobering idea that the only time these two cousins ever met was when John baptized Jesus). John argues for Jesus to go to Jerusalem at the start of his ministry, and when Jesus chooses a different path, John goes instead, making it really easy for Herod Atipas to arrest him. Meanwhile, Mary is overly resistant to her son beginning his ministry; no doubt this is intended to be foreshadowing of the death of Jesus, but it does reflect poorly on her faith (compared this to the powerful portrayal of Mary in Mel Gibson's film or the serene faith of the mother of Jesus in "Jesus of Nazareth"). In many ways this film does not trust Jeffrey Hunter with the role of Jesus that he is playing. Many of the miracles are done with heavenly music playing and often Orson Welles narration (written by an uncredited Ray Bradbury) takes great pains to tell us what we are seeing (Welles has a curious habit of pronouncing all of the letters if the word "apostle"). I do not think Jesus says anything before he saves the adulteress with the wonderful first stone criteria. But then this film does a complete about face and lets Hunter do what I think is the longest segment in one of these films concerning the Sermon on the Mount. Ultimately, this is the pivotal scene of "King of Kings." The key thing is that this is a Jesus who comes down from the Mount to walk amongst the people and talk more directly to them. Hunter does have a few good moments, where he clearly comes across as trying to persuade the multitude to be righteous instead of just preaching platitudes. This is a Jesus who is trying to relate, which results in a curious juxtaposition of a Sixties "cool" Jesus and a political climate reflecting a Fifties "Cold War" mentality. This film was produced at the start of the Sixties, so Jesus is not really being portrayed as a hippie, but the long hair is certainly there. Hunter's natural stare has an inherent element of rebuke in it, so it is not like this Jesus is any type of hippie. The attempt at a more naturalistic delivery by Jesus does work at times during the Sermon, and it is the one scene that justifies watching this epic. Hunter's performance also stands out in comparison to those of his disciplines, where neither Royal Dano as Peter or a young Rip Torn as Judas distinguish themselves in any way; Pilate and Herod Antipas are the two most interesting characters in the film, set up because for this film the crucifixion of Jesus is clearly a political act. It was explained to me once how each of the four Gospels has a different perspective on the life of Jesus and essentially a different purpose. In looking at the major films made about the life of Jesus you can probably make a similar claim. Of those films, "King of Kings" with its heavy political themes becomes the easiest one to so label.
Rating:
Summary: A Good Movie About the Life of Jesus!
Review: I taped and watched the 1927 silent movie The King of Kings a few nights ago on Turner Classic movies and today I saw the 1961 remake and I liked both movies. My favorite movie about Jesus is still Jesus of Nazareth in which Robert Powell gave a wonderful performance as Jesus but I also think Jeffrey Hunter was very good as Jesus and I'm glad that I finally watched this movie version. I didn't think I was going to like this movie because of all of the negetive reviews I read complaining about the movie and Jeffrey Hunter and saying things like he was to blond and looked like a blond surfer dude playing Jesus, well I didn't think his hair looked all that blond and looked more like light brown to but that's besides the point and I just really didn't have any major problems with this movie and now count it as one of my favorite movies about Jesus and I very greatly recommend it. The only reason I give this 4 stars instead of 5 is because I thought they could have done a better job with the resurrecion and ascension scenes which I thought were done better in other Jesus movies including the 1927 Cecil B. Demille version of King of Kings but anyway besides the minor complaint I liked this 1961 movie and I just taped it from TCM today on Easter Sunday and someday I might buy the DVD.
Rating: 
Summary: Has Some Nice Moments, But Too Little Time Spent On Jesus
Review: I was disappointed with this film. It has some nice moments and interesting camera angles, once in awhile, but the movie has a major weakness in that it seems that background characters get too much screen time, and Jesus gets too little time on screen. This movie does an interesting job with the characters of King Herod, his wife Herodias, and their daughter Salome', who get John the Baptist beheaded. The movie also shows a lot of interesting details about the political background of the Romans in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the Herod family, Pilate, Barabbas, and other background characters are covered in as much detail and screen time as Jesus is allotted. They barely get into Jesus' ministry, focusing on Jesus Himself, until well into the second half of the movie. Then they push alot of separate Bible verses and statements into whatever scenes seem to be easiest to compress together, like the Sermon on the Mount scene. The strangest event is the portrayal of Judas Iscariot as trying to trick Jesus into becoming the real world messiah of the Jews by betraying Him, to force a Jewish revolt against the Romans, with the help of Barabbas; which is totally NOT in the Bible. The photography is nice, but the special effects are weak. The actors are chosen well for their parts, but the lousy writing bogs down the film, and it really drags along for nearly three hours. Overall, this movie could have been a great film if it would have focused primarily on Jesus, not all of these background characters with such questionable, historical accuracy. I would recommend instead "Jesus of Nazareth" on DVD, which is similarly priced, a 6-hour TV mini-series circa 1977, and is much closer to Bible accuracy; as well as surpassing "King of Kings" in the areas of photography, sets, script, drama, and acting. "King of Kings" held some promise for me, being directed by Nicholas Ray, (famous for "Rebel Without a Cause"), but this film is more like a Movie Without a Main Character.
Rating:
Summary: Jeffery Hunter as "Jesus"
Review: I have never seen this film before. My favorite is JESUS OF NAZARETH (1977). I am just about to sit down (with popcorn) and enjoy King of Kings starring Jeffery Hunter as "Jesus". You may recall Jeffery Hunter on VHS video or a syndicated television special of the never-before-seen Star Trek pilot, THE CAGE. Here is my review: Narrated by Orson Welles. The film begins with some 33 years before Jesus was born. Caesar overtaking a kingdom. Finding the scrolls that Moses had written laying atop a valuable piece of metal. Caesar appointing Herod, and then Joseph the carpenter and Mary finding a place for Jesus the baby to be easily born. I was impressed with this version. Easy to follow and easy to watch. Still in this 2 hours and 50 minutes film, so many important details and miracles of Jesus were not filmed. I'm sure that Jesus did not wear a zippered red jacket and there were no buttons in the back of clothing back then, but that's Hollywood. Don't let this distract you from enjoying this fine movie. This is a good film for children to watch. There is no nudity, no offensive things and no medical procedures that will be said here. But as always, the Crucifixion is hard to watch. This version does include when Jesus was arisen and visiting his diciples though not filmed in detail. Movie includes Overture, Intermission, Entr'acte, End Music.
Rating: 
Summary: Another Bad Jesus Movie
Review: Of all the Jesus movies I have seen this ranks as one of the worst. It is another Hollywood bomb which tries to augment the gospels with pretty boy actors playing Jesus like Jeff Hunter and a stellar cast of nobodies playing the apostles anod other gospel characters who clumsily play their parts as if walking in their sleep. The screen writers of Jesus movies cannot improve on the poetry and inspiration of the four gospels. Thus so in not sticking with the original script, the writers ruin the bible for those who do not read it. The scenery is as expected and the movie plods to its obvious end. This movie is about as bad as The Greatest Story Ever Told. I have never seen any good movies about Jesus where some self aggrandizing director like Mel Gibson or Franco Zefferelli did not mess up the gospels. All in all I hated this movie.
Rating:
Summary: FANTASTIC!
Review: As a returning servant in CHRIST, these types of movies should be viewed in these days of television. As it is HARD to get our youth to sit and READ THE WORD'S of GOD, these could be best used to stimulate our youths and generate their interest's as a effective visual aid. I have ordered ONLY Biblical related movies to better educate my family next generation to teach VALUES that are noticably lacking with today's tv format. Everything now gives TOO MUCH glory to decadance and depravity, hence, the esculating crimes committed by today's youth WORLD-WIDE. Thank You amazon.com for having these available!
Rating:
Summary: I have liked this movie since I was a child
Review: I have always loved this movie, my favorite scene being the sermon on the mount. I know a lot of people have complaints about the historical inaccuracies and constantly compare it to "The Greatest Story Ever Told". I think people misunstand the main point of this movie, it is about the kingdom of Heaven, not so much a biography of Jesus. It centers around Herod, Pilate, Barabas and Jesus. They are four subplots are tied together by the Roman soldier Lucius who at the end of the movie says that Jesus must be the son of God. The movie basically asks what is the Kingom of Heaven? It contrast Herod kingship, Pilate's roman governership, Barabas idea of a free kingdom, and Jesus' kingdom of Heaven. The most beautiful scene in the movie was when Jesus spoke the Sermon on the Mount. Where Jesus is in a way explaining the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus is finally crucified for being a King. I hope this made sense, it is a little hard to explain. God Bless!
Rating: 
Summary: Visually interesting but terribly inaccurate
Review: I just watched the King of Kings a few moments ago. Unfortunately I was disappointed. Visually, its re-issued version is awesome - the colors and tones are sharp and brilliant. The cinematography was superb. In terms of the production value, it is impressive. Unfortunately, it is so inaccurate in terms of details - culturally and historically. Sadly, there are so many elements that are fictional, they are not found in either scripture nor any historical sources. The large scale attack led by Barabas against the romans, Jesus' visiting of John the Baptist in Prison, are just a few of the things that have been fictionalized. Even the portrayal of the political landscape of the time is so inaccurate. The whole movie is so very theatrical in its presentation that it just lacks a sense of realism. As a movie from the 1960's it is entertaining to watch. But as a religious or biographical film it did not inspire me.
|
