King of Kings
|
List Price: Our Price: $7.74 You Save: $7.23 (48%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.71 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of King of Kings
Movie Review: The life and death of Jesus from a political perspective
Summary: 4 Stars
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.
Movie Review: Slow but Interesting
Summary: 4 Stars
"King of Kings" is somewhat tame compared to many other films on the life of Jesus, but is still nevertheless well worth watching. It does not have the grandeur and visual beauty of the George Stevens "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965), or the intensity of the silent Cecil B. DeMille "King of Kings" (1927) that it is supposed to be based on, but it is always reverential towards its subject matter, even if at a rather slow pace. Many of the events told in the Gospels are simply read, rather than depicted, and this job goes to a Roman named Lucius (well played by Ron Randell), and the magnificent voice of Orson Welles as narrator. There is also a fair amount of extraneous material in trying to describe the political climate of the time, and to expand on the life of Jesus.
Jeffrey Hunter, an underrated actor during his short lifetime and handful of films, is a handsome Jesus, with crystal blue eyes, and is very effective in the temptation in the desert, and the Sermon on the Mount. His youthful good looks made some people nickname this film "I Was a Teenage Jesus," even though Hunter was in his mid 30s at the time. Others in the cast are Siobhan McKenna as Mary, Harry Guardino as Barrabas, Rip Torn as Judas, and Hurd Hatfield as Pontius Pilate. Robert Ryan makes a good, grizzled John the Baptist, and of all the film Salomes, Brigid Bazlen is the best. Her voluptuous seduction of a drunken, lascivious Herod (Frank Thring) is terrific storytelling and quite believable.
Directed by Nicholas Ray, the film has a grand score by Miklos Rozsa, and the cinematography, shot on location in Spain, is by Manuel Berenguer. In my extensive "Jesus" film collection, this is the one I play the least, but it has value in many of its performances, and as a comparison to other films of this theme. Total running time is 170 minutes.
Movie Review: An Americanized 1950's Idea of Christ and his Mission.
Summary: 4 Stars
This film of course is now somewhat obscure considering all that has been done since the time of the film on the life of Christ. Jeffery Hunter is the most handsome Christ you will ever see on screen. The apostles are all clean cut. The movie features very colorful clothing to catch the eye. A great musical score by Miklos Roza, which is a particular favorite of classical music fans to request on the radio even today! The Gospel is rather compressed and the ministry of Christ in particular. However, that is not to say it is ineffective. The Sermon on the Mount scene is actually an encapsulated all comprehensive review of Christian philosophical points boiled down to one mass meeting. The movie is not adherent to Bible events and contains a lot of fiction, especially with respect to the activity of the aristocracy and the romans. It tries to tell several stories, such as Barabbas, a Roman Officer, Mary the mother of Christ, John the Baptist and definitely has the most beautiful Salome you will ever see dance on screen. The taking of the cross, the whipping, the death, are all handled very delicately. Not too much blood or grief. Jeffery Hunter is seen after the Easter rising and is shown symbolically at the end very well with the apostles gathered on the beach and his shadow overwhelms them as he tells them to depart to preach the Gospel and they leave 2 by 2. A really effective scene for a movie so entrenched in 50s culture. Having seen this movie as a child in the sixties and seeing it again now in this century, I think it should not be too criticized with our 20/20 perception now. Back then it was after all a different time and culture, one that does not exist today and should be viewed perhaps in a nostalgic way, worth a viewing, but don't depend on it for filling you in on Biblical truth.Movie Review: KING OF KINGS
Summary: 4 Stars
As soneone who grew up in the era of the widescreen, epic Biblical dramas, I am pleased that the DVD process preserves the quality of the original negatives and soundtracks. KING OF KINGS looks and sounds terrific. In the linear notes to the CD of the exciting Miklos Rozsa score, it states that, when completed, "this film was a mess." There was no structure, just a lot of disjointed footage. So a narrator was used to tie scenes together. Thankfully that narrator was Orson Welles, who adds a wonderful, if originally unplanned, quality. Today the narrator would probably be James Earl Jones. Because of the fictional character of the Roman officer, Lucius, played by Ron Randell, who is supposed to represent the Gentile world's reaction to Jesus, time is lost for more intimate scenes between Jesus and his Disciples. This lack gives us, therefore, only a cursury view of Jesus. As far as history is concerned, there is one glaring mistake. In the beginning, Herod's son, Herod Antipas, is seen taking his father's throne. In reality, Antipas's brother, another of Herod's sons, took the throne for ten years. Antipas was never more than the ruler of Galilee. The "trial before Pilate" scene also lacks emotion depth, as it takes place among only three participants: Jesus, Pilate and Lucius; where are the famous crowds? Martin Scorsese did a more complete attempt at an intimate look at the life of Jesus with THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. KING OF KINGS also seems to me to have a bright and shinning look to it and makes the ancient world seem less dirty and dingy than it probably was. In the end, however, if we are talking about simple preservation of motion picture history, then the telecine and audio artists who created this DVD are to be applauded.Movie Review: Generally effective adaptation of the Gospels
Summary: 4 Stars
Samuel Bronston's production of "King of Kings" is a generally satisfying "epic" based on the life of Jesus. Not as elaborate as 1965's "The Greatest Story Ever Told," but not as boring either. Directed by Nicholas Ray, the auteur behind "Rebel Without A Cause" and "Johnny Guitar," it was controversial at the time of its 1961 release with some critics finding it blasphemous (the very characteristic that would likely earn it praise today), apparently because the miracles are presented with a certain subtlety, a quality not generally associated with a genre mastered by Cecil B. DeMille. This is not a thorough adaptation of the Gospels, and far below the standards of the later "Jesus of Nazareth," but it is respectful and generally well-done.
The late Jeffrey Hunter makes for a very charismatic Jesus. Then 33 years-old, the same age as Jesus at the crucifixion, Hunter gives a sincere performance, one that didn't warrant the "Teenage Jesus" charge popular at the time. The unjustified pans his performance received did seem to have a negative impact on his career, with the actor turning to TV as the star of the Jack Webb produced "Temple Houston" only a year or two later). Robert Ryan, usually cast as psychotics and killers, gives some appropriate muscle to John the Baptist.
Orson Welles narrates from a script to which Ray Bradbury contributed. Miklos Rosza's score is superb and inspiring, the best thing about the film.