Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.

Not too long ago, I wrote a review on "The Greatest Story Ever Told," stating that I had originally seen it upon its first release back in 1965, and had given it an excellent review for my college radio station and newspaper. I had found it one of the best films ever made, but seriously flawed. Upon seeing it once again, my comments remained the same. It IS the definitive film on the life of Christ, despite the use of too many stars in cameo roles, at least three of which are genuinely awful.

The producer/director of "The Greatest...," George Stevens, had stated before the film's release that he wanted to film the story of Christ's life without the usual accompaniments of previous films, particularly large scale battle scenes with Roman soldiers, and lavish sets and costumes that had nothing whatever to do with Christ's life. I'm certain the film he was directly aiming that comment towards was "King of Kings."

I also saw "King of Kings" shortly after its original release in 1961, and enjoyed it at the time. I was somewhat puzzled though by the Catholic Church's bitter criticism of the film because of its historical and scriptural inaccuracies. I have to admit, that I wasn't as familiar with the gospels and other writings about Christ when seeing "King of Kings," than I was when seeing "The Greatest..."

The notorious "Legion of Decency" had given the movie a "Separate Classification," instead of giving it a rating declaring it suitable for all audiences. The church stated that, if my memory serves correctly, "despite its inspirational intent, it is both historically and scripturally inaccurate." That's certainly true, but to have parish priests preach to their following that they shouldn't see "King of Kings," implying that it was a sin to do so, was outrageous. The film deserves whatever criticism it gets on artistic measures, but not moral issues. Had the church said such a thing today about any film, it probably would be facing yet another lawsuit.

After reading several recent positive reviews on the DVD release of "King of Kings," I decided to purchase a DVD and view it again, not having seen it for well over 25 years.

Just as point of reference it should be pointed out that be
fore its release, the producer, Samuel Bronston, made a statement that "King of Kings" would be "bigger and better than 'Ben Hur' in every way." It is neither.

First and foremost, "King of Kings" is a spectacle, and the life of Christ definitely takes a back seat to all of the following: some well staged and bloody battles; a curious depiction of Judas Iscariot (played by a very young Rip Torn) as "partners in crime" with Barabbas (played, complete with his thick New York accent, by Harry Guardino); very lavish sets and equally lavish and garish costumes for all the "bad guys;" and a droning, entirely unnecessary and quite inaccurate and historically false narration by Orson Welles. I recall reading that Orson, who is not credited, requested that his name not be listed, and that he be completely disassociated with the film because he disliked it so much.

In the early 60's, moviegoers were impressed with lavish sets and costumes, and theatres resounded with "oohs and aahhs" when the 70mm screen image was of an impossibly opulent and luxurious set seemingly made entirely out of marble, with numerous gold statues all over the place. "King of KIngs" certainly has its share of these. Insofar as costumes are concerned, Herod, Herod Antipas, Herod's wife, Pontius Pilate and his wife are all outfitted with some of Hollywood's most imaginatively overdesigned outfits ever put on screen. Herod Antipas in particular, wears what seems to be no less than a dozen different robes, each more and more lavish and colorful than the other.

Frank Thring, the British actor who portrays Herod Antipas (and who portrayed Pontius Pilate in "Ben Hur") is a delight to watch because he was possibly the biggest ham in the history of film. No one could swish robes around, curl his lip or flip an eyebrow with the flair that Thring did. Corny and "over the top" for sure, but fun.

And, oh yes, this is supposed to be about Christ. Herein lie the worst aspects of the film. Jeffrey Hunter is just plain bad as Jesus. Oh, he looks OK with his piercing blue eyes, and handsome face, but the sing-song manner in which he delivers practically all his lines has no more conviction than the manner in which people attending Sunday Mass mutter their prayers. Inspirational, he ain't.

But the worst part is that the film is not just "inaccurate" - it is just plain wrong. Many of the famous parables from the Gospels are not just severely truncated - they are depicted at the wrong times and places.

In "The Greatest Story Ever Told," and in "Jesus of Nazareth, Christ asks his disciples, "Who do others say that I am?" Peter answers with, "You are the Messiah. The Christ. The Son of the Living God." Christ responds with, "You have learned this, not of mortal man, but from my Father in Heaven. You are the rock on which I will built my church." Pretty significant and powerful stuff.

In "King of Kings," as Christ is initially gathering his disciples, Christ meets Simon and says, "You are Simon who I will call Peter. The rock on which I'll build." This totally destroys the meaning of the parable, and is just plain awful. Even Orson Welles's narration continues with "Simon, called Peter."

"Consider the lilies of the field: they neither reap nor sew." There is more to this, but in "King of Kings," this is all you get - you never hear, "Yet Solomon, in all his glory was ever arrayed as one of these." And so on, and so on and so on. There is no scene of His cleansing the Temple ("Mine is a House of Prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves"), there is no crowd scene demanding, "Give us Barabbas," nor is there ever any suggestion that Christ himself was a Jew, despite many references to him as "rabbi." He is merely a "pretty boy" who wanders around, and recites lines in a manner I couldn't imagine that would inspire anyone.

Lastly, in one of the silliest conceits of Hollywood at the time, all of Hunter's body hair has been shaved off, and he looks absolutely ridiculous. This is especially so next to the two thieves crucified along with him who do have body hair. Is the movie suggesting that only thieves and murderers grow hair on their chests and under their arms?

One can only wonder why the makers of "King of Kings" so totally re-wrote the gospels, and placed most of the truncated parables during the Sermon on the Mount, where they just don't fit.

On the postitive side, the color and print quality of the DVD are outstanding, especially so considering the age of the film. Miklos Rosza's score is up to his usual high standards, and the "Hosannah" that is heard with almost every appearance of Christ is genuinely lovely.

But color and impressive music does not a fine film make. "The Greatest Story Ever Told" is certainly the finest film adaptation ever on the life of Christ. "King of Kings," regrettably, is one of the worst.

Recommended: No

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: None of the Above
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older