King of Kings (1961) User Reviews

Hunter Shines in Uneven Life of Christ Epic...

[cariart · 8/10 · 9 August 2003]

'King of Kings' features Jeffrey Hunter's finest performance, as a young, dynamic Jesus of Nazareth, and his interpretation, open and earnest, is the best part of a movie both uneven and flawed.

Produced by many of the people responsible for 'Ben Hur', the film utilizes some of the same sets, actors (Frank Thring appears in major roles in both films), and composer (Miklos Rozsa, whose score for 'King of Kings' was one of his finest). The cast was fleshed out by respected actors (Robert Ryan is too old but charismatic as John the Baptist, Siobhan McKenna is a glowing, if also too old Mary, Brigid Bazlen, a deliciously wicked and oversexed Salome, Harry Guardino, an 'over-the-top' Barabbas, a VERY young Rip Torn scores as Judas). While the cast didn't have the 'star power' of 'Ben Hur', or many other Christian epics, the actors, by and large, perform credibly in their roles, particularly Hurd Hatfield and Viveca Lindfors, as Pilate and his wife, Claudia, and Ron Randell as Tribune Lucius.

The film was a MUCH less expensive project than 'Ben Hur'; the budget restraints show most glaringly in recreating Jesus' ministry (most of Christ's miracles are only referred to, not shown), and extras casting (non-professional Spanish townspeople, overdubbed with some truly RIPE dialog!).

The film works best when focusing on Jesus; unfortunately, it frequently veers off into distracting subplots about Barabbas and the zealots, and the decadence of Herod's court. These stories consume a LOT of screen time, and damage the overall impact of the film.

Yet rising above all this is Jeffrey Hunter's interpretation of the Savior. Easily the most audience-friendly of all the actors who have assailed the role, Hunter took a lot of flack for his 'matinee idol' good looks, and piercing blue eyes, but his kindness, sincerity, and the complete believability with which he delivers Christ's words overcome any qualms about his appearance. The Sermon on the Mount is a film high point, and magnificent; the Crucifixion and Resurrection have the kind of power that can bring a lump to your throat, even after repeated viewings.

While 'King of Kings' lacks the big names and budget of 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', or the emotional core of 'Jesus of Nazareth' or 'The Last Temptation of Christ', in Jeffrey Hunter, the film presents possibly the most compassionate of all screen Messiahs, and makes this film a very moving experience!

Uneven but when it's good it's very good, fantastic in some cases

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 18 April 2014]

There is a lot of great talent here in King of Kings and on the most part it is well-used. King of Kings does have some unevenness, with the Barabbas and Herod subplots taking too much time and there should have been more of Jesus. There are a few performances that didn't quite do it for me, Frank Thring and Harry Guardino go overboard in the hammy camp department as Herod Antipas and Barabbas and Royal Dano has some very awkward, emotionless dialogue delivery that was suggestive of him not knowing what to do with it. A lot of King of Kings is very good though, Robert Ryan is subdued at times but is a charismatic John the Baptist, Rip Torn is a moving Judas, Hurd Hatfield plays Pontious Pilate with authority and Brigid Bazlen's Salome is sexy and wicked. The film is intelligently scripted and directed with skill by Nicholas Ray who knows how to do majestic spectacle and character relationships, there's proof of knowing how to balance the two as well. The story sustains its running time very well, and while not completely successful with the aforementioned distracting subplots but the Dance of the Seven Veils, the Last Supper and Gethsemane scenes are very well done. Jesus' relationships with the apostles and his mother are believably portrayed too. Jeffrey Hunter is surprisingly excellent, the quiet dignity he brings is perfect for Jesus and his eyes communicate so much. There are several fantastic things too, the best asset being Miklos Rozsa's score which is just marvellous and essentially IS the film. Rozsa was a truly great film composer with some equally great scores under his belt, and he provides some majestic and beautiful moments, the hauntingly beautiful yet uplifting scoring in the ending scene in my mind is some of the best he ever did. The ending honestly left me floored, it should be emotional and it was, devastating even and the score has a lot to do with it. Orson Welles' narration, which added a lot to the story actually, is distinctive and understatedly powerful, and the film is very lavishly mounted in detail and scope with the cinematography just as sumptuous. Overall, King of Kings is far from perfect with the story needing more balance and a few performances underwhelmed but there are a lot of good things, with Hunter, the ending, the production values, Welles' narration and the music especially working. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

"Lo, I Am With You"

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 12 February 2007]

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.

It Still Delivers!

[chaderek · 4 April 2003]

A recent screening of "King of Kings" at New York's Museum of Modern Art (Gramercy Theater) proved the durability of this production. A sizable group of people were prepared to titter or howl at what they thought would be another mindless Biblical epic -- instead, they were quickly absorbed and attentive to the film's virtues: its reverence, economy, visual beauty, and especially Jeffrey Hunter's quietly commanding Christ. Yes, this is still the good film based on the New Testament (with some subtle and searching script additions). Thanks still go to Nicholas Ray for his tactful, expert handling of a timeless story.

Rebel With A Cause

[jimtheven · 7/10 · 4 February 2001]

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.

Good religious movie for its time

[sharonartiste43232 · 7/10 · 4 January 2007]

I have the DVD of King of Kings and I thought it was a well made motion picture. The cinematography and musical score was very good and Jeffrey Hunter did a good job of portraying Jesus. I don't know why he received so much criticism. I don't think he looked like a teenager. People who put down this movie have to understand that it was made in 1961 and not early 21st century. There was no CGI and very,very few Middle eastern actors that spoke good English at that time. Also at that time, most people in the Western world saw Jesus as a light haired white European, due to the influence of medieval art. Movies were much more difficult to make and took a lot longer time in the 50's and 60's. At least with the films of that time period, they used REAL PEOPLE AND REAL ANIMALS and not CGI. The only parts that I didn't like in the movie was Frank Thring's AWFUL wig and VERY FAKE beard. I thought he looked hideous. I also thought that they placed too much emphasis on Barabbas. They also didn't show enough of the miracles that Jesus did. The actress that played Virgin Mary also looked too old. They should have cast Carmen Sevilla as the Virgin Mary instead. I also didn't care much for the actor that played John the Baptist. He seemed very dull and stiff. The scenery in the movie was very pretty and the Sermon on the Mount scene was the best in this movie. The costumes were done very well. A good, but not perfect movie on the life of Christ.

A Classic!

[terrorfan · 10/10 · 27 April 2001]

Growing up as a young boy in the early 1970's and attending catholic school you weren't assured of many things but you could always count on your Mom making sure that at Easter and Christmas time you were parked in front of the television watching "King Of Kings" in two parts on channel 7's "4:30 Movie"! Now in my late 30's I own a copy of this film on video and watch it much in the same manner with my young daughter who is so eager to learn about the life of Jesus Christ. I'm no religious fanatic but I am as good a catholic as I can be and must say that this is one of my all time favorite movies and certainly THE classic among all biblical epics! The photography is gorgeous, the direction tight and often seamless and the musical score will raise goosebumps on the most hardened person. Clocking in at 3 hours the film not only details the life of Christ but also focuses on Roman rule and it's politics as well as the turmoil of Judas and the radicalism of Barabbas among other things. Directed by Nicholas Rey, the unusual cast does it's best led by Jeffrey Hunter as Christ and including veteran actor Robert Ryan as John The Baptist. Most of the rest of the cast seems to have their dialogue dubbed in but I am not sure that is the case, though that is the way it appears. There are many emotional highlights in the film such as Johns first meeting with Christ at his baptism. No words are spoken between the two but the intercutting camera work of both mens eyes as they stare at each other with that wonderful background music puts a smile on your face before you even realize it. Other scenes of note include the healing of the paralyzed boy who emerges from his bed and walks towards the door which is bathed in bright sunlight. Also powerful is Christ calming the raving mad man by simply holding him in his arms and staring into his eyes. There are many wonderful scenes throughout the epic film and of note is the "battle" scene between Barabbas and his followers and the Roman army whcih for 1961 comes off quite violently. There are also some vital scenes that are not in the movie which may leave you with an "empty" feeling. Scenes that should have been included I feel are Christ calming the raging sea and walking on water and the incident where just before he is arrested an apostle lops off the ear of a roman soldier to whcih Christ picks up the ear and repairs it. This would have made the film even more powerful. Overall this is a wonderful, uplifting movie that is truly a classic of it's genre. And then of course there is Jeffrey Hunter as Jesus Christ. Though his performance is a bit understated, he does fine and gave many of us baby boomers the ultimate "image" of Christ with his handsome features, long hair and the incredible, piercing blue eyes. for many of us, we were convinced that when we went to heaven, Hunter would be there with a white robe and arms outstretched. See this wonderful film or better yet, share it with your family and young ones and help pass on a wonderful tradition.

Compelling, well made, but flawed film on the life of Jesus

[watrousjames · 7/10 · 9 March 2021]

He directing, costume design, cinematography, and music score are quite good. The director, Nicholas Ray, was known for making smaller films, such as REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, dealing with flawed characters. This was his first (and I believe) only epic. Jeffery Hunter plays Jesus in it. He's not a bad Jesus, but he is underwhelming compared to other actors who have played Jesus like Robert Powell, Max von Sydow, Enrique Irazoqui, Henry Ian Cusick, and even Jim Caviezel. The supporting actors are better such as Siobhan McKenna as Mary, Harry Guardino as Barabbas, Rip Torn as Judas, Robert Ryan as John the Baptist, Carmen Sevilla as Mary Magdalene (who is portrayed as a former prostitute, even though there is no evidence she was), and Ron Randell as Rufus, a fictitious Roman soldier created for the film, who is sympathetic to John the Baptist and Jesus. The film focuses a lot on the political situation of the time. It focuses on Pilate, Herod Antipas, and Barabbas and Judas (who are friends in this film). While, interesting it should have been focusing more on Jesus. Also, we don't really get to know the twelve apostles that well, except Peter and John a little bit and Judas the most. The sermon on the Mount is the best part of the film. Even though Jesus is speaking lines not just from Matthew's Gospel, but the others as well, including John. The film is based on all four Gospel, which is always tricky. If you have never seen this film it is worthwhile seeing once. It would be nice to see on the big screen in 70mm.

a film worthy of its subject (the life of Christ)

[Tashtago · 10/10 · 15 December 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.

old Hollywood biblical epic

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 23 December 2018]

It's the story of Jesus starting in 63BC with Pompey's conquest and sacking of Jerusalem. It's an old Hollywood biblical epic. The narrative is a bit disjointed and scattered. Barabbas and Judas Iscariot are depicted as rebel leaders. Jeffrey Hunter has his leading man looks for Jesus. Some of the performances are a little stilted leaving some without the personal touch. It's a lot of melodramatic acting and cinematic scores which fit its era. There is a running narration from Orson Welles. While the movie follows everyone, it may be more effective to concentrate solely on Jesus and make it a more personal depiction. It does break ground by portraying Jesus but the effect is mixed. The expansion of Barabbas' story is probably the most notable. It has its importance which at times overshadows Jesus. It's interesting that it comes out around the same time as the movie Barabbas which expands the character in a different way. This has a place in the pantheon of biblical epics of the era.

Behind Blue Eyes

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 23 March 2008]

This film was unjustly nicknamed "I Was a Teenage Jesus", as star Jeffrey Hunter neither was, nor does he look, like a "teenager". Rather, his appearance quite matches the idealized "Jesus" very much accepted by many Christians. Actually, Mr. Hunter is, overall, the correct age to be portraying Jesus Christ; although he is perhaps, a little too "hunky" looking. H.B. Warner, who starred in Cecil B. DeMille's original "King of Kings" was far too old. Admittedly, Mr. Warner was, with the help of a softening lens, more successful essaying the role than Hunter.

The angling direction, by Nicholas Ray is interesting, if uninspiring. Miklos Rozsa's music is lovely, contributing greatly to the film's reverence. There are some nice supporting performances; I enjoyed, for example, Hurd Hatfield's "Pilate"… and some of the others were amusing, at least. "King of Kings" has a big, colorful look - but, it's one of the duller entries in the Biblical epic genre. It's a handsome production, but it might take a miracle for me to sit through "King of Kings" again.

***** King of Kings (10/11/61) Nicholas Ray ~ Jeffrey Hunter, Hurd Hatfield, Robert Ryan

Nicholas Ray's stark, sacred opera

[benoit-3 · 10/10 · 25 February 2003]

"King of Kings" just came out on DVD tonight and I watched it for the first time since it came out in 1961. It's a glorious experience! There's not a bad actor in the lot! Jeffrey Hunter is superb and quietly intense! Miklos Rosza's score is quite different (all things considered) from the one for Ben-Hur, even reaching atonal dephts in the temptation in the desert scenes and giddy Renaissance heights in the entry into Jerusalem. Nicholas Ray's direction is a study in gestural choreography, all human interactions being delineated by what the actors do with their hands to each other's body (a thesis could be written on that subject and probably was). This film has rhythm and flows like a river. Enrique Alarcon's art direction is incredibly tactful, stark and opulent when the need arises, with lots of added touches of pure strangeness (why does Herod keep a dead tree at the centre of his court?). The colours, the cinematography... This film has been miraculously preserved and the transfer to DVD must have been done at the Vatican. The sermon on the mount is one of cinema's textbook scenes, with Jesus doing a walkabout in the crowd and being surrounded by all sides on a hillside in a very democratic way (even though he wears the colours of a Communist). Even the opening sequence of Pompey entering Jerusalem gave me the old chill of 42 years ago (Whatever happened to Conrado San Martin?). Thring, Hatfield and Viveca Lindfors are predictably great. But who knew about Ron Randell's great talent? Or that Rip Torn could be so un-ironic?

Between an epic and Sunday School

[tomsview · 7/10 · 9 June 2016]

I saw this film when it was released in 1961, I was about thirteen and ancient historical epics were just about my favourite kind of movie. However "King of Kings" fell somewhere between a spectacular epic and a Sunday School lesson.

There have been quite a few films about the life of Jesus since this one was made including a couple of biggies: George Steven's "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth". Unlike the other two, "King of Kings" didn't go for a multitude of well-known stars doing one-minute, pop-up appearances. Producer Samuel Bronston spent the money in other areas, and every dollar showed on the screen.

Although there is no accepted physical description of Jesus, Jeffery Hunter would have to be about the best looking movie Jesus of them all. He was an actor who always looked like he should be in movies. He was almost too good looking, but in this, those piercing blue eyes added to the sense of a man who had the charisma to draw thousands of followers to him even at the risk of their lives.

Robert Ryan likewise made a powerful John the Baptist; it's hard to imagine him any other way after seeing this movie.

Hurd Hatfield delivers an autocratic and urbane Pilate, but Frank Thring as Herod Antipas rose to the challenge, and then some. Over-the-top and scenery devouring maybe, but he's mesmerising - he even makes Charles Laughton look positively restrained in the same role in 1953's "Salome".

Nearly all the major films about Jesus base their scripts around the gospels. "King of Kings" features many of the well-known episodes, but whenever the film looks like slowing down with too many sermons, either the Zealots attack the Romans or we cut straight to the palace as Herod attacks the Ten Commandments including lusting after Salomé, his teenage step-daughter. There are no slow spots in Samuel Bronston's "King of Kings".

The film has its own style, which is set with the ominous opening narration by Orson Welles; it's an absorbing three hours with more than one inspirational scene.

Whether it's the best movie about the life of Jesus is definitely down to the way you like your bible told.

Is it just me?

[mercury4 · 1/10 · 14 April 2004]

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.

the music, the narration, the blue eyes ...

[didi-5 · 27 June 2002]

Everything fits together as soon as the film opens with Orson Welles' narrating the story of the Son of God. Little Jesus grows up to be the very American and impossibly blue-eyed Jeffrey Hunter (his opening scene with Robert Ryan's Baptist is superb), who goes on to cure the lame, the insane, the blind, rehabilitate Mary Magdelene, and all the usual things. Hunter is very good in the role, which may have been surprising at the time given his previous form in Westerns (and later in Star Trek's pilot episode!). Other good points - Hurd 'Dorian Gray' Hatfield as Pilate, the dance of the seven veils, the ending, the glorious score ...

It fits together better than The Greatest Story Ever Told, which got too starry and was spoiled by John Wayne's son of gawd. Here everyone knows their place and the religious context remains unscathed by the whitewash of Hollywood. Excellent.

Classical

[folkloro · 7/10 · 14 April 2001]

After the perfection of Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" and the pure artistic realism of Pazollini's "Il Vangelo Secondo Matteo", "King of Kings" is the 3rd most classical film which is referred to Jesus Christ's life. I admit that the cast was not the best it could be ,except Herode Antypas and Pilatus,maybe the story was too predictable concerning the way of the story was told,but it is too descent and it is what someone can expect from a biblical film. I think that if anyone wants to have a classical view of Jesus life it is better to see "King of Kings",although the movies I mentioned above are much better than any other similar.On the other hand it is superior than "The Greatest Story Ever Told".An all star movie with not so good results. "King of Kings"It's just classical(Although it is not the best).

Nicholas Ray can do epics.

[Austen · 7/10 · 30 September 2002]

KING OF KINGS tells the story of Jesus of Nazareth with the subtle genius of Nicholas Ray completely intact. Ray doesn't portray Jesus as "magic", but rather as Jesus the rebel, poet, passive resistor and prophet, while still telling the story of a shepherd of men. Note the touches Ray adds. All the miracles Jesus "performs" either come from secondhand (and therefore questionable) accounts or offscreen suggestions (when Jesus passes his hand over the boy and he stands, that hardly seems like a miracle to get someone to stand up. it is only the implication that it was some type of miracle). Jesus is the people's leader. Pilate, on the other hand, is seen making decisions from his sauna or at the hair salon. Towards the end, Pilate's wife asks, "What crime has he committed?" Pilate responds, "He is different! He won't act like the others." Perhaps the greatest scene in the film is the sermon on the mount. Jesus is in white with a bright red covering, framed against the deep blue sky--directly recalling James Dean in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. So we have Jesus as the intellectual ostracized by the wealthy, greedy rulers. Kind of a common subject for most auteurs, Ray goes straight for a most ancient formulation. While not Ray's best film, KING OF KINGS is still wonderfully intelligent and beautiful.

awe-inspiring

[tsf-1962 · 9/10 · 13 December 2006]

This movie falls somewhere in between "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and "The Gospel According to Saint Matthew" as far as movies about the life of Christ go. It's not as slow and solemn as the first movie, but it doesn't follow the Gospel narrative as closely as Pasolini's film does. Nevertheless it's a very good film. Jeffrey Hunter and Robert Ryan may not bring the iconic dimensions that Max von Sydow and Charlton Heston bring to the roles of Jesus and John the Baptist respectively, but they look good and are never less than believable. Hunter is an outstanding Jesus, emphasizing the human rather than the divine nature of the Saviour; his Jesus is more the gentle redeemer and less the stern judge (unlike Enrique Irazoqui). Siobhan McKenna is perhaps the definitive screen Virgin Mary, and Ron Randall as the Roman officer Lucius provides the average man's perspective on events. Frank Thring as Herod Antipas, Hurd Hatfield as Pontius Pilate, and Rip Torn as Judas all make their characters believable; Brigid Bazlan, as the jailbait Salome, is such a hottie it's a shame she was never in any other movies. The beautiful Spanish landscape makes an appropriate stand-in for first-century Israel; the widescreen photography and Miklos Rosza score are breathtaking. Orson Welles' narration alone is worth the price of admission. This movie was unfairly tagged as "I Was a Teenage Jesus," perhaps because its director, Nicholas Ray, had also directed "Rebel Without a Cause," but it's an excellent movie that has stood the test of time.

Judas the Rebel without a Cause?

[funkyfry · 6/10 · 15 October 2002]

The life story of Jesus is told with more fidelity to story, continuity, and good "cinema" than gospel (which is fine with me). An entirely fictional Roman named Lucius is invented (and eventually converted), and Barabbas and Judas are made into revolutionaries, apparently in order to give Judas some "character motivation" (30 pieces of silver are never mentioned). Looking into this more closely, you can see that the real reason Barabbas and Judas were made into revolutionaries is to explain away the Jews' choice of Barabbas as the prisoner exempted from crucifixion -- Lucius tells him "Your followers yelled the loudest", thus ridding American Christians of a very sticky point.

Still, Hunter is very good as Jesus and the film manages to convey the spirit of Jesus' teachings (not too easy a task for a movie). The Herod and Salome sequence is very nicely handled.

Majestic portrayal of Christ, first rate storytelling. Outstanding soundtrack.

[prman-5 · 10/10 · 9 April 2006]

This is one of the classic portrayal's of Jesus Christ and the message of hope He gave to us. Jeffery Hunter did a riveting portrayal (the best I think that has been done)of the person of Christ. The intensity and the sheer majestic quality, shows just how much the writers, producer, and everyone involved wanted to portray Jesus the man and Jesus the Son of God with the total commitment of bearing witness to who the Son of God was, and is. I have the original collectors soundtrack from 1961, complete with hardback book, and the newer version on the CD with the added 30 minutes taken directly from the original movie film master. The soundtrack so greatly enhanced the already magnificent movie. I never tire of watching this classic. I have watched it about 25 times, the sermon on the mount part over 50 times. What a delivery! Jeffery Hunter was a great actor and the only one that could pull off this portrayal of Jesus. Amen!

I'm not sure I've ever seen a movie so unfocused

[stitch-99 · 6/10 · 2 July 2011]

I watched this movie just last night. I can honestly say that it was not what I expected.

Before I get into this, let me say that there were plenty of good things about this movie. Almost the entire cast was, well, well-cast. The cinematography is also quite good. Furthermore, while it was not used very often, the symbolism employed was quite interesting.

The primary failing point of this movie, for me anyway, was the fact that it's so much more about the political context of Jesus than about Jesus. This might have been more at home in one of those older Jesus films where he was almost entirely unseen, but Jeffrey Hunter was very much a presence in this one.

Additionally, the character of Lucius (who, in line with my above criticism, was more of a character than Jesus was) was the product of so many contrivances to ensure that he was wherever the plot needed him at that particular time. The movie couldn't decide whether he worked under Herod or Pilate, so he was constantly bouncing back and forth between the two.

On a lesser note, the actor portraying John the Baptist was not very good. John should be wild and kind of crazy. This guy was incredibly calm. I had a very hard time believing that Barabbas would think he would be of assistance in revolution or that Pilate and Herod felt threatened by him.

All-in-all, it's an okay movie. It just suffers from a huge lack of focus and some pretty big contrivances.

The Blue-eyed Jewish Jesus

[LPurch6636 · 5/10 · 19 December 2006]

I was very disappointed with this movie about Jesus, though I have to admit that when I saw the movie at the time it was made, I didn't really notice Jeffery Hunter's very non-Jewish looks (including big blue eyes) and I didn't know enough of the Bible to be appalled by some of the very unbiblical parts of the script. I recently read that Ray Bradbury-- a purveyor of non-Christian thought if you read his other writing-- wrote the script for King of Kings. The biggest Scriptural error that I saw in King of Kings was Jesus's teaching-- according to the movie-- was "peace" when that was more the liberal philosophy of the 1960's, not "the peace" of the Bible. Jesus, in Matthew 10:34-35, said: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'..."

Jesus *is* PERSONAL peace for those who come to Him but as any Christian who is robust in his faith will tell you, "My family thought I went nuts when I made a decision to come to Christ, and I found that certain members of my family would no longer talk to me." And Jesus's answer for this to the Christian is Luke 9:62: "But Jesus said to him, 'No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.' "

Gutsy stuff. Not this Sixties pablum-version of "love."

I *did* notice that Jeffery Hunter "as Jesus" had his arm pits shaved which took away the effect of reality from my point of view, almost making me laugh. The music was so great, and I like the parts that had Mary in-- who to me projected a Biblical Mary, so I did feel that the movie was "trying" to do a good thing. Hence, I can't completely downgrade this movie. Most of the acting was excellent.

Jeffrey Hunter is Captivating As Jesus

[artemis_5 · 9/10 · 19 August 2003]

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!

Good, albeit dialled back a little

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 25 April 2011]

The chief virtue of King Of Kings as a movie, and as compared with other biblical epics, is that while it may be worthy, it isn't particularly earnest. It presents the Easter story in a straightforward way, with the primary intention of engaging the audience and conveying the substance of what it has to say. What it doesn't do is preach or convey a sense of its own self-importance.

The sets and costumes are all a bit clean: everyone is polished and freshly ironed at all times. This is rather jarring, especially these days when we have got used to seeing how grimy and grubby the past was.

Jeffrey Hunter's Jesus is excellent. His early death was a great loss.

Bad script, bad wigs, bad film...

[EdgarST · 2/10 · 19 January 2014]

Everybody tries hard, but the film only comes alive when it turns into a real dramatization of Biblical texts... and these moments are placed in long intervals during 164 minutes. Otherwise it is an overlong and pedestrian literal reading of passages contained in the gospels. Compare the events concerning Barrabas (Harry Guardino) and his army of rebels fighting the Roman empire, or the scenes played by Lucius (Ron Randell) as a witness of all the drama, to the silly histrionics of the Herod family (better told elsewhere, with someone as beautiful as Rita Hayworth playing Salome, not pale Brigid Brazlen), and it becomes obvious that when the scriptwriters (Philip Yordan and all the many uncredited hands) distanced themselves from the sources, they did a better job. Poor Jeffrey Hunter (as Jesus) and Rip Torn (as Judas) were given the worst wigs available, and they had the leading roles! Don't blind yourself because you are a believer. Avoid.