King of Kings

Rating:
Summary: So bad I cringe
Review: This is one of the worst films ever made on the life of Jesus, and that is saying something because there are many bad Jesus films out there. What makes this particularly heinous? First, it puts words into the mouth of Jesus, invents incidents that never occurred in his life, and is generally so loose with the Gospel narratives, that I had to pause to check I had not put in the wrong film. Second, the acting is painfully poor. Third, the production is typically Hollywood of that period: big sets, big drama: big embarrassment. All in all, I would not only avoid this monstrosity, but caution all people NOT to see it. You will you NOT recognise Jesus in this film. I give it five stars for being the worst of its kind.

Rating:
Summary: Good performance by Hunter but not the best Jesus film
Review: I own several movies on the life of Jesus Christ. I used to own this one but I sold it. I felt that there were better movies which depict the life of Jesus in a more dramatic and biblically accurate way.

The good points:

1) The sincere and charismatic performance by Jeffrey Hunter. One of the best scenes was Jesus teaching on the Sermon on the Mount. Jeffrey Hunter does an admirable in reciting the famous lines from the Sermon on the Mount.

2) The epic treatment of this movie. It was shot on a grand scale, similar to that of "Ben-Hur."

The not-so-good points:

1) This movie only featured one miracle performed by Jesus -- that of the casting out of a demon, and it was a lame depiction at that. I was disappointed that there weren't more miracles depicted.

2) The skimpy depiction of Jesus' resurrection. Some of the most important scenes for any Jesus' movie are the resurrection scenes. This movie ends with Jesus appearing to the disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John 21 passage), but we only hear Jesus' voice; we don't actually see him. It ends with the shadow of a cross on the seashore and Jesus' voice echoing the Great Commission. It would have been better to have shown Jesus talking to the disciples and restoring Peter. It would be great to see Jesus giving the Great Commission, not just hear his voice.

3) Despite Jeffrey Hunter's good performance, Jesus appears with blond hair and blue eyes. Jesus looks more like he's from European descent than from Jewish descent.

4) The straightforward and uninvolving depictions of scenes which could have been much more dramatic. 2 examples of scenes that could have been a lot better depicted stood out to me. One is the Temptation scene. Jesus basically hears an audible voice of Satan and then tersely recites lines of Scripture back to Satan. It is biblically accurate but quite dull. The other scene is Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene after His resurrection. Again, Mary and Jesus recite the lines from the Bible but it is not very moving.

I gave this movie 3 stars because overall it is good, but not particularly outstanding. I would recommend "Jesus of Nazareth" and "The Gospel of John -- Visual Bible" over this one. Not bad, but there are ones that are much better.



Rating:
Summary: Majestic "Old Style", Retelling Of The Life Of Jesus
Review: There was a time when this 1961 Epic which retells the life of Jesus of Nazareth was a regular fixture on our Easter television programming. The passing of time has not dimmed the great effect that this version of this famous story has on me and while parts of Jesus' life and the identities of the twelve apostles are passed over rather quickly it is still a moving and splendidly put together effort. Much criticism of the choice of Jeffrey Hunter as Jesus has been made over the years however I feel he makes inspired casting in the lead role and while he does look very Anglo Saxon in appearance he does amazingly resemble countless depictions of Jesus in old Master paintings. He brings a quiet dignity to the role of Jesus and with his piercing blue eyes and majestic presense he is rightly the inspirational centre of this wonderful story. Made on a large budget in 1960 it was the first of two big screen epics in the early 1960's retelling the life of Jesus. The other example "The Greatest Story Ever Told", takes a much more detailed and intricate approach to the story but both versions with their different slants compliment each other well and are both cherished viewing at Easter in my home.

Taking on the life of Jesus would be no easy task for any film maker however "King of Kings", delivers a sort of snap shot view of the main happenings of Jesus' life as told in the Bible. Itself a remake of a much earlier 1927 silent effort of the same title the film is definately part Hollywood epic, and part sensitive recollection of the key happenings in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. We witness his birth in a stable in Bethlehem to his saintly parents Mary (Siobhan McKenna), and Joseph (Gerald Tichy), his families fleeing to Egypt to escape the order issued by Herod (Gregoire Aslan), to kill all the first born male children in the city; we also witness Jesus as an adult beginning to realise his real calling in life and his gathering of his twelve apostles who assist him in his ministry by spreading his teachings among the masses. The culmination of the story covers the well known ground of Jesus' stirring sermon on the mount and his arrival in Jerusalem where he is heralded as a king much to the anger of Roman governer Pontius Pilate (Hurd Hatfield), who puts the wheels in motion that eventually lead to the crucifixtion of Jesus and his resurrection. What distinguishes this version of the life of Christ however is the earlier mentioned Hollywood slant on the story, (which may cause disappointment among some purists),which takes the form of more emphasis being put on the rule of Pontius Pilate in Judea, and the intrigue of the Roman court than on alot of Jesus teachings , alot of which are merely referred to as having happened. A number of fictional elements are also incorporated into the story, the most prominent being that the screenplay makes Pilate's wife a daughter of the Emperor Tiberius and here the thief Barrabas (Harry Guardino ), becomes a sort of jewish rebel who is in league secretly with Judas (Rip Torn). Also the one recorded meeting between blood cousins Jesus and John the Baptist (Robert Ryan), is expanded to include a scene of Jesus paying him a visit in prison just prior to John's execution on the whim of the seductive young Salome (Brigid Bazlen). While I can see that these elements would offend some viewers in their deviation from the stories recored in the Bible, in the context of the films long running time they actually I feel add some interesting elements and give this film a much different look and feel to "The Greatest Story Ever Told".

Filmed on location in Italy and Spain, and boasting an on going narration by none other than Hollywood legend Orson Welles "King of Kings", had no expense spared on it in terms of sets, costumes and in capturing amazing vistas as in the superb sermon on the mount scene that still is the films mos tfamous moment. Performances over all are uniformily fine. Jeffrey Hunter as mentioned earlier is still I believe a memorable choice as Jesus and he is aided by superb work by Siobhan McKenna in a beautifully underplayed performance as Mary, Hurd Hatfield (still best remembered for his performance in the eerie "The Picture of Dorian Gray"),as the arrogant Pontius Pilate, Ron Randell as the questioning Roman officer Lucius, and especially by Australian actor Frank Thring in a typically dastardly role as Herod Antipas. Many memorable scenes colour the film and the whole invented scenes of Barabbas staging a rebellion against the Roman government while certainly distracting from the story of Jesus does still boast some fineely staged action scenes in the temple of Jerusalem. For the sermon on the mount which was staged on a rocky outcrop in Spain the producers gathered together 7000 extras for this one moving scene which until this day is still one of the best staged. Even in this scene "King of Kings", takes a different approach by showing Jesus moving freely among the people while addressing them, answering their queries and doubts which gives the scene so much of its individual human quality. Blessed with beautiful technicolour and a rousing musical score by Miklos Rozza which is one of his best the production has a very beautiful look about it and the score in particular compliments the story perfectly never once loosing reverence for the sacred material it is highlighting.

I'm a huge fan of these early 1960's biblical epics and while I realise that "King of Kings", with its at times unusual approach in story telling will not be to all tastes it is still a first class effort in terms of both production and performances that succeeds in being both an enjoyable viewing experience while still informing us of the main events in the life of Jesus and the amazing influence that he had on so many people. Hollywood movie making of the old school is most definately represented in MGM's epic "King of Kings", and I strongly recommend it to all viewers who like old style epics and also to those that share an interest in the fascinating life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Rating:
Summary: Good classic movie on the life of Christ
Review: I watched King of Kings on DVD recently and at first I didn't think I was going to like it, but after watching it in its entirety, I enjoyed it. It is a good movie on the life of Christ that was made during the 1960's. It is not perfect, but the sets and costumes are done very well. It is a nice movie to watch on a cold winter's evening or on a weekend. Jeffrey Hunter did a decent job of portraying Christ and I don't understand why he received so much criticism.

Rating:
Summary: Deleted scenes.
Review: A reviewer from 2003 asked about a "deleted" scene between the characters of Joseph and Lucius in the Bethlehem stable, and Joseph being moved to strike Lucius unconscious to escape to Bethlehem. Though this appeared in the Dell comics tie-in and the novelization tie-in, both readied during the film's pre-production, the scene never was in the release print. No doubt the Catholic Church was uneasy about any show of violence from its patron saint. Many stills from this film, supressed in the US but available in European poster work, show many scenes that did not make the final cut (i.e.-the whole subplot of the character of David). This could turn out to be THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS of the religious epic genre.

Rating:
Summary: Overated, but worth viewing.
Review: This is probably the first film about Jesus that I ever saw (and, from my understanding, the first real color epic on the subject), and as a recovering Catholic with a predilection for all things sentimental, I can't resist watching this now and again. Jeffrey Hunter is not my ideal choice for the role of Jesus, but as a fan of Star Trek I'm happy to accept (Hunter was the original Captain Pike of the Enterprise in the unreleased pilot). One reviewer (who's piece is titled "YOU FUNDAMENTALISTS MAKE ME SICK") made a statement critical of people who objected to the film's deviations from traditional scripture. I admire the film's attempt to provide some historical backdrop, but it should be kept to just that: not corny, unfounded speculations or unnecessary plot filler. I don't object on any spiritual grounds (I'm an atheist); I just don't think this creative scriptwriting is very effective. The invented dialogue between Lucias, Pilate, and Jesus during the trial is just plain dumb. The scene where the Romans find evidence that the Zealots are making weapons: idiotic. At the same time, it is interesting to note that this film casts Judas Iscariot as being in league with the Zealots. It is this one small detail that makes this film worth seeing from a film historian's standpoint as this idea has made it's way into quite a few other movies about Jesus since (including "Jesus Of Nazareth" and "The Last Temptation Of Christ"). What's behind this? There is a very popular theory that "Iscariot" is actually a copyist's error and should probably read "Sicariot." The theory maintains that "Iscariot" is probably not a surname. However, "Judas Sicariot" would translate as "Judas the terrorist" (from "Sicaii," a faction of the Zealots who carried out political assassinations - hence Harvey Keitel's portrayal of the character in "The Last Temptation Of Christ"). The film's attempt to bridge the gap between the Biblical and the Historical Jesus is admirable. Unfortunately, in 1961, there wasn't as much information to assist literary criticism on Scripture as there is today (especially after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are still undergoing publication to this day). Therefore, many of the augmented passages of this film only serve to make an already long film longer. Hollywood - that's all I have to say. This film is a relic from a genre that has (hopefully) spent itself. The DVD has some nice extras. Rent it, don't buy.

Rating:
Summary: Magnificent!
Review: I first saw "King of Kings" as a young boy, age 13, when it first hit Theaters. I was impressed then, and am impressed today! Especially watching the DVD in High Definition on my new 62 inch widescreen... its like being there in the theater at age 13 again! Jeffery Hunter plays a magnificent part... as one reviewer said, "those piercing blue eyes" ...the tender smile, firm resolute condemnation of wrong, moral character... he displays dignity, respect, and strength, yet shows humility, caring, and emotion. Yes, as with any film about Jesus or the Bible, there are representations that are not true to everyone's interpretation, but, generally, it is pretty close to the literal version of the Bible story. The music is incredible! The brilliant colors... Roman and Jewish cultures, Landscape, Sermon on the Mount... I highly, highly recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: My Favorite of the Christ Stories
Review: Okay, I will admit there are some stunning films about Christ. But this is my personal favorite. It is not accurate in costume or perhaps in the events per se, but visually it is stunning, grand and beautifully acted. Jeffrey Hunter also looked great as the annointed one and played the part with great sensitivity.

Whether you are a Christian or even believe the story of the Christ, this is still a wonderful story and one that has endured for many centuries. This is a beautiful film in any book.

Direction, music, cinematography, spectacle and acting are all first rate. DVD transfer is beautifully reproduced.