I was so bored by this movie. It is very boring. It is one of most boring movies I have seen. The story line is awful. It is a very boring movie. Do not see it. It is so boring.

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.

As a portrayal of the life of Jesus Christ, "King of Kings" hits the obvious high points. It has the feel of a spectacle - trying to do for the Gospels what "The Ten Commandments" did for the story of the exodus, but not succeeding as well. We see some of the birth narrative, Jesus' baptism, his temptation in the wilderness, his ethical teaching and of course his trial, death and resurrection. It's not all told in accordance with the biblical account. As often is the case, the story of his birth is a conflation of the accounts of Matthew and Luke (the magi did not visit a baby at the manger - they came to a child in a house!) Almost all of Jesus' ethical teachings are jammed together into a strangely extended Sermon on the Mount which goes on and on, although at least the ethical teachings are there, and there's an interesting portrayal of the trial of Jesus, complete with an advocate for the defence, explaining to Pilate why Jesus should not be crucified. It works - although it's a bit uneven - and it gets the point across. Jeffrey Hunter also did a credible job as Christ - a difficult role. He portrays a dignified Jesus, accepting of his mission even while sometimes tormented by it (such as in the temptation scene or in the Garden of Gethsemane.) Jesus with piercing blue eyes, mind you, seems out of place. To its credit, the movie also deals in a little greater depth with the resurrection, which many film-makers either shy away from or treat in a cursory manner. Those are all strengths for the most part.Unfortunately, the strengths are balanced by more than a few weaknesses. Shall we start with the narration by Orson Welles. It was usually extra- biblical, offering sometimes unnecessary commentary. It was distracting and detracted from the flow of the movie, making it seem unfortunately choppy. Hunter aside, I found the performances in this underwhelming, leading to what I found to be a rather cold, emotionless feel to the story - a feel heightened by Welles' rather monotone narration. I felt especially that Robert Ryan underplayed John the Baptist - a rather wild biblical character whose essence Ryan didn't seem to capture for me. There were also some additions to the story - such as a portrayal of the rebellion led by Barabbas - that were interesting enough but probably not necessary.The most obvious comparison to this would be "The Greatest Story Ever Told," which came out a few years later. It had a higher profile cast, and a more emotional feel to it, but Jeffrey Hunter was better as Jesus than Max von Sydow was. It's hard to choose between them. Both have strengths; both are flawed. The life of Jesus is a tough story to put on film. I think such a movie needs a more specific focus (such as "The Passion" or "The Last Temptation") or it needs to try to take a lighter, less serious approach, which can still get the point across (like "Godspell.") To try to portray Jesus' entire life in such a serious manner, but also to make it work as a Hollywood production, doesn't seem to work well for me. (5/10)

A decent depiction of the life of Jesus.Covers the whole of Jesus' earthly life, from being born in a stable, to His death on the cross and subsequent resurrection. Leaves out His childhood and young adult years, jumping from shortly after His birth to when He first started preaching and performing miracles.The final scenes are particularly powerful, the like of which were not seen again until The Passion of the Christ in 2004.Leaving out His childhood was a mistake in that you don't get the build-up to His later life, as you don't get the earlier indications of His greatness and divinity.Instead we have this almost-parallel story of Barabbas. In the Bible we only hear of Barabbas at Jesus' trial, but here there is a whole sub-plot involving him (how much of which is true, one cannot say). I can only assume this was put there for secular audiences, as his presence gives us some action scenes and makes the movie less single-stranded.Solid performance by Jeffrey Hunter in the lead role. The major supporting cast are mostly fine, but there are some fairly hammy performances out there too. A good movie for both Christians and non-Christians.