source: King of Kings

For me and, I suspect, a lot of other Boomers who were pious as kids and tipped off by nuns about the 4:30 Movie on Good Friday, this one is beyond criticism. When it's time for us to go, many of us will be seeing Hunter's face, baby blues and all, in the midst of the white light... But personal soft spots aside, it's a pretty good Jesus picture. Hunter may speak with the unctious blandness of a TV game show host, but he's earnest and vigorous and has a certain charisma you could take as Godhood... The music is sublime. Ray's direction has a lot of the REBEL WITHOUT quirks. Note the weird angles during Salome's dance. The Sermon on the Mount is probably the best sequence. Those oddly lit and artsily angled close-ups of Jesus are intriguing. Then He comes over the hill with His arms outstretched and it's pure glory... Sweet as a jelly bean, redolent of Easter lilies.

The story of Jesus has been told many times from the very beginning of the movies, but this version, underrated when first released, is one of the best. KING OF KINGS creates and sustains a dignified yet highly entertaining tone that is unique among biblical epics. The screenplay is extremely intelligent and effective, concentrating not just on Jesus, but on the society and personalities that surround him. Pilate, Caiaphas, Mary, John the Baptist, Mary Magdalene, the apostles, and a sublimely oversexed Salome are all well-drawn characters and well-cast, especially in contrast to the uncomfortable "superstar cameo" approach George Stevens used in his inferior "Greatest Story Ever Told". The political background is well handled, making clear the wish of Judas and others that Jesus foment a revolution to free the Jews from Roman rule. Handsome, myopic Jeffrey Hunter may not be a great actor, but his low-key, measured performance matches the overall design of the film very well. Orson Welles' rapt, mellifluous narration is a plus, as is Roschka's passionate musical score. Definitely see this letter-boxed to appreciate the gorgeous scenery, photography, and spectacular scenes.

The Technicolor cinematography is so beautiful that one can almost forget the tediousness and silliness that make watching this movie an exercise in endurance. Everybody looks well coiffed, bathed and wears great new clothes. The make-up department seems to have received the biggest part of the budget. Robert Ryan, (John) Royal Dano (Peter) and Jeffrey Hunter (Jesus) look great in a gay, beautiful, pseudo-rugged, male model sort of way. Ryan and Hunter babble insane nonsensical lines with a heavy heart and a twinkle in their eyes. Some of the lines come from the gospels, some are made up. None of them are intelligent or make sense. The characters are all one dimensional or even zero dimensional (Jeffrey Hunter is a picture postcard Jesus). The problem is that the story is myth, but the filmmakers treat it as history. As history, it is just silly. Herod orders the killing of children in one scene and in the next scene he is suffering horribly and dying for his crime. This is Sunday school morality masquerading as history. The Romans are the bad guy oppressors of Judea. Barabbas and Jesus both come to free them, both fail. It is quite depressing if you think about it. The movie forgets that the problem it has set up was the historical problem of the Jews trying to end Roman oppression (itself a one-sided, nonsensical interpretation of history). Instead it ends on the predictable Empty-Tomb fairy tale note. With the traditional "He has risen" and "they lived happily ever after" nonsense. People talk about the thousands of extras for the Sermon on the Mount scene. Actually it seems more like a campaign appearance of a presidential candidate, who takes planted questions at the end. With Jesus speaking in a low voice, it is hard to imagine that more than 20 or 30 people could hear him. All the extras do nothing, but they seem to be there to indicate to the audience the message: "See how expensive this movie is, they could afford to hire all these extras." Monty Python did a great spoof of this scene in "Life of Brian"..."I can't hear bloody thing,"..."I think it was blessed are the cheese-makers" "What's so special about the cheese-makers?"... For heterosexuals, the only slight joy is 16 year old Brigit Bazien as Salome. She is the only one who brings any passion and enjoyment to her part. Her two minute dance is the brief highlight of the movie. However two minutes of a retro teen music video and 166 minutes of looking at gospel illustrations does not a good movie make. For enthusiasts of this kind of story, I would recommend Pier Pasolini's "Gospel of Christ According to Matthew." (1960) for those looking for a more interesting telling of the story. It also has a gay-looking Jesus, but it at least presents the story faithfully as a fairy-tale and doesn't try to make it a Hollywood historical epic. Also superior is "Jesus Christ, Superstar," (Jewison, 1973) the Broadway Musical version of the story. It actually raises far more intelligent questions relating to the tale and has terrific music. For sado-masochists, there's "Whack-a-Jesus" AKA "The Passion of the Christ (Gibson, 2004).

Check this out over the boring "Greatest Story Ever Told" any day. The entire cast right down to the bit players who portray the beneficiaries of Jesus healing are all effective and extremely moving. The script moves quickly and adeptly between story lines involving a Jewish insurgency against the Romans, King Herod's court, and the story of Jesus Christ. King of Kings may or may not be historically accurate, but makes for great entertainment. That said, the scenes with Jesus are almost all derived from the Gospel. Jeffrey Hunter is an excellent Jesus,emphasizing the gentleness and conveying the inner spiritual strength that the real Jesus must have possessed.Another of the many acting highlights is Brigid Bazlen as a wickedly sexy Salome. I can't fail to mention the Oscar worthy performance of Rip Torn as the spiritually "torn" Judas. Fans of the Larry Sanders Show should look for Torn in another overlooked performance in the movie "Pay Day". I believe Martin Scorsese said Jesus must have been the equivalent of a rock star in his time and this film affirms that idea. This movie has something for everyone and scores on many different levels. First as historical fiction it's compellingly told,second there's plenty of heroic action involving Barrabas uprising against the Romans, and then the moving display of mysticism involving the scenes with Jeffrey Hunter (Jesus) and the inspiring majestic score of Miklos Roza. Nicholas Ray an unlikely choice for director tackles the subject with aplomb.

Awful. There was more time, more emphasis on everything and everybody else but Jesus. Inaccurate, misleading, and hell bent on lots of extras and costumes, just like its ridiculous introduction stated. A battle and massacre right outside the Temple while Jesus was speaking inside???? Where did they make this up from? Caiafas hanging out with Herod and Pontious Pilate??? Judas a....simple patriot? That was a neat attempt to absolve a Jew for surrendering Jesus to his death, making Judas appear as "....Gee...I had no idea it would go so far, I thought they'd just fine Him...". Ridiculous. The whole of the priests at the Temple waring identical white robes? How realistic was that? Mary Magdalene wearing what looked like a white cotton, long-sleeved sweater??? No guards outside Jesus' tomb? No angels to tell the "what do you seek the living among the dead?". The narration was a bad idea, ensuring that the viewer never got involved in the film. The scenes with Jesus were few and short, since all the time was taken with marching roman soldiers and such other "spectaculars". As for Jeffrey Hunter...too bad he accepted the role. Looked like an athletic college football player, with stiff and pompous deliverance. too bad. With the greatest story and material, they could only make a film like this. Lacking in vision, screenplay, sensitivity, and suffering from a total absence of what was really important.

This movie is so underrated. I think it's one of the best movies about Christ which was well played by Jeffery Hunter. There was also a great supporting cast that included Sobian McKenna, Robert Ryan and many others. Why this film didn't get any attention at the 1961 Oscars, i'll never know. I would have given this film an Oscar Nomination for Miklos Rosza's music score which is one of his best scores ever. I think also the set designs were pretty good and worth of an Oscar nomination as well. The Cinematography was pretty good even though there was better work at that time. I think this movie beats 1965's "The Greatest Story Ever Told" which went way too long and just wasn't as interesting as this one. Nicholas Ray did a great job with this one and this film deserved a lot more than it got.

I recently saw this film for the first time in a long time. I had seen CBS's miniseries "Jesus" last year and was moved (see my review of that film). I must say that I was completely blown away by Jeffrey Hunter's performance. While he does not come off as warm as Jeremy Sisto in "Jesus", I am told that his portrayal is more accurate (in how the bible paints Jesus). Furthermore, Jeffrey Hunter brings an element of mystery to the role of Jesus, and I am not surprised that there are accounts of extras being moved by seeing him in his costume. Some critics have denounced the director for casting an "pretty-boy" as Jesus. Do they think that the son of God was not attractive? Please!!! When God created his son, he produced his most perfect creation. It is not possible to be too attractive to play Jesus. Jesus was probably better looking than any man that has ever existed, or will ever exist. Just because Jesus dressed in poor garments does not change his divine origin. Therefore, contrary to detracting from his performance, Hunter's stunning looks give him an otherwordly quality. His blue eyes are intense and penetrating---his voice soft and melodious---his mannerisms lordly. This is a man who people could believe was Jesus! All of the supporting cast provided good performances. I particularly liked how Pontius Pilate, Judes, Herod, and Barrabas were presented, although I think that there were too many scenes of Barrabas and too few of Jesus. Also the Virgin Mary did not interact with Jesus enough, and Mary Magdalene kept darting in and out of scenes, and you would have to know a little bit about the bible to figure out her significance. Also, why were Jesus' miracles read off a list or eluded to instead of shown? I like the way that Jesus' miracles were shown in the miniseries "Jesus". I do not think any great special effects were employed for those scenes, yet there were very powerful. Of all the scenes in the film, I like the Sermon on the Mount, the meeting between Jesus and John the Baptist in prison (there are only two lines in that scene, but the silent communication between them is truly extraordinary), and the trial before Pontius Pilate (Jesus shows great dignity and courage in refusing to play into Pilate's hands). I appreciate the director's desire to exercise tact in the crucifiction (spelling?) scene, but I agree with the person posting on this site who said that the crucifiction did not look painful the way that it was presented. It is important for the audience to grasp how much Jesus endured for humanity, and that is not shown as effectively as it could be. However, I found myself cringing as Jesus was flogged, so this part of the film is not without power. All in all, a great film!

Jeffrey Hunter was very good in this movie. I thought he was a very good choice. I don't care how young he was. Besides, he's not the youngest. A younger actor named Jeremy Sisto recently portrayed Jesus in an NBC movie. Even though Jeffrey Hunter didn't disappoint me, this movie did. The whole thing just seemed like one big rush job. It also got a lot of things wrong. I hate how you see more of Herod, his wife and her daughter, Pontius Pilate (horribly portrayed by Hurd Hatfield), and Barabbas more than you see Jesus. It was so stupid. You hear about all of the miracles of Jesus, but barely see anything. Hardly anything is shown in King of Kings. Also, why was Barabbas made out to be some kind of hero fighting for freedom? Barabbas was a murderer and a thief. And since when were Judas and Barabbas friends? The crucifixion scene is also rushed and poorly done. Jesus is carrying the cross for about a minute. Then he falls down once and they get Simon of Cyrene. It's pretty sad how movies like; The Robe and Ben-Hur can do a better job with the crucifixion scene when they're not even about Jesus. I expect much more from this movie when it claims to be about Jesus Christ. Jesus says to his mother, "Behold, your son." That's it. When Jesus said this he was talking about John, his youngest disciple standing beside Mary. Then Jesus looked at John and said, "Behold, your mother." In this movie his disciple is nowhere to be found. There are only a couple of people on the hill too. Why didn't they show the people condemning Jesus? Why didn't they show Jesus return to his disciples? Why do you only hear about it just like everything else? Why don't you see Jesus ascend into heaven? You only hear his voice. Was this movie disguised as a big budget epic? This movie was very rushed and didn't get any facts straight. I could go on and on with the errors. This movie is not the best, it is not great, and it is definitely not King of Kings.

A few years earlier than George Stevens mammoth all star film about the life of Jesus was this film by Nicholas Ray. Taking, it's title from the Cecil B. DeMille silent film, this version of King of Kings is in no way a remake of the DeMille epic. This King of Kings is a moving reverential account of the life of the obscure carpenter from Galilee whose thoughts still move millions today. The voice you hear doing the narration bridging of the various episodes of Jesus's life is the familiar one of Orson Welles. Nicholas Ray shot this film in Spain with the broad central plain serving as Judea in the early years of AD. Unlike Stevens, Nicholas Ray used second line players for the most part, the biggest name in the cast is that of Robert Ryan as John the Baptist. Jesus is played by Jeffrey Hunter and if you were to ask today's movie fans what they most remember about Hunter, they will either say his role in the original Star Trek pilot as Captain Christopher Pike, or his two roles in John Ford films, The Searchers and Sergeant Rutledge. Some reviewers have remarked about Hunter's blue eyes, personally I think Nicholas Ray might have cast Hunter with those baby blues to mark Jesus as indeed unique among the populace of Judea. In any event it's a sincere portrayal that Hunter gives. He's most effective in the Sermon on the Mount scene. King of Kings takes a great deal more liberties with the four Gospels than does the Greatest Story Ever Told. It fleshes out the peripheral characters in the Bible giving them more identity than Scripture does. Barabbas as played by Harry Guardino is a guerrilla leader rather than a bandit and Rip Torn who is Judas is one of his associates who leaves Barabbas after the Sermon on the Mount. Judas's motives for betrayal are explained as an effort to force Jesus's hand. He wants Jesus to use his power of miracles to aid in the freedom fight against Rome. I think most people view Judas as doing what he did because he totally failed to understand the mission and nature of who he was following, What Ray does here is deepen that context. There are a few scenes in their besides this part of the storyline that are not biblically found. After Jesus saves Mary Magdalene, Carmen Sevilla as Mary goes searching for him and visits with Mary his mother who is played by Siobhan McKenna. They talk for a bit, McKenna describes some of the miracles attributed to her son. Jesus himself drops out of biblical dialog in a scene where he asks to visit John the Baptist. The scene is with the Centurion Lucius who was present at the massacre in Bethlehem and later would pronounce His epitaph at the cross. Ron Randell plays Lucius and his Lucius is a world weary professional soldier, sickened by the court of Herod the Great and his successor Herod Antipas. He hates having to serve these people because Rome is backing them as surrogate leaders. Randell has a key role here, he serves as a prototype for the gentiles who Jesus says his disciples must minister to. Being inveterate star gazer I am, I do like The Greatest Story Ever Told better. But King of Kings is still a fine retelling of that selfsame story.