User Reviews

Cecil B. DeMille's film about Jesus was made during a period in his career when he left Paramount and organized his own studio. Unfortunately for DeMille his studio went belly up after the stock market crash of 1929. The King of Kings is unquestionably the greatest film he made during that period.

But in DeMille's cinema gospel he eschewed the traditional Christmas story to be found in those four other gospels. DeMille begins his movie with a real lavish party at the home of a noted women of the town Mary Magdalene played by Jacqueline Logan. It's DeMille showing revelry at its best and most alluring.

Logan asks why one of her favorites, Judas Iscariot hasn't been attending her clambakes recently. She hears he's been hanging around with this carpenter from Nazareth reputed to have performed some miracles and who doesn't approve of her lifestyle.

That's it for Ms. Magadalene; she's not about to let this hick take one of her favorites away. Off in a chariot pulled by Zebras she goes after this carpenter. She finds H.B. Warner as Jesus doing one of the miracles and becomes a follower herself.

After this the film becomes a reverential straightforward account as you would find in the Bible.

Reverence and revelry, the hallmark of a DeMille film is found in equal measure in The King of Kings. H.B. Warner does a fine job in the lead role, he makes a saintly Jesus. I do wonder what led DeMille to cast Warner, to think of him in the first place. Warner was 52 at the time playing a 30 something Jesus.

The King of Kings offers the movie fan to see father and son Rudolph and Joseph Schildkraut who play Caiaphas and Judas. Both contribute fine performances to the endeavor. Unlike later gospel based films, this one clearly has Caiaphas as the villain of the piece. He's described in the subtitles as a man concerned more with 'revenue than religion' which doesn't make him all that different from some folks I could mention today. The Schildkrauts however were Jewish and stars in the Yiddish Theater in Europe and America. They got good and slammed for their participation in The King of Kings by more than a few of their co-religionists.

Sharp eyed viewers will also note that the guy playing Simon of Cyrene who helps Jesus with his cross is none other than Hopalong Cassidy, William Boyd. Boyd was a DeMille discovery and had previously starred in another DeMille production, The Volga Boatman. This of course was years before he became the idol of the nation's children.

In his autobiography DeMille goes into some detail about how Jeremiah Milbank helped him with the financing of the DeMille Studio from which The King of Kings was produced. After the initial run, Milbank set up a foundation in which prints of The King of Kings were copied and made available to various Christian mission groups free for their work. It's one reason why this particular film is never in any danger of being lost.

DeMille was told on at least one occasion that this was his greatest picture because there is no greater subject. It's arguably one of his best from a technical standpoint. Still for the hundreds of millions of affiliated Christians on the planet, The King of Kings certainly occupies a special place.

What a masterpiece! Visually stunning and deeply moving, even for the non-religious. DeMille was at his best in the silent era, and I have never seen the story of Christ told so beautifully. With more than a passing nod to nineteenth century Biblical painting, DeMille recreates the last days of Jesus' life in painstaking detail. He takes some liberty with chronolgy, and there is his trademark combination of religious fervour and delicious decadence. But the passion and sincerity are so strong that I'll be surprised if you don't shed a tear once or twice. And Joseph Schildkraut is stunning as Judas.

Eye-popping sets and superb photography combine with huge crowds of extras and excellent costumes to create one of the great epic films. And dig that opening orgy scene involving a scantily clad Mary Magdalene, a couple of old men, a leopard and a hunky charioteer leading a team of zebra! Wow! The first shot of Jesus is also cinema magic, an unforgettable moment. This film is superb.

This Cecil B. DeMille silent classic is still well worth seeing. It is creative and interesting, while remaining respectful to its subject, and thus it is among the best of the many movies made about Jesus. Unlike most directors (especially today), DeMille did not think that he was bigger than his subject, and thus he uses his skills to illustrate the well-known story and to make it memorable, rather than expending time and energy in trying to push some trivial perspective of his own. He makes it lavish when it should be lavish, and keeps it simple when it should be simple.

The opening scene, with Mary Magdalene and her admirers hearing bits of news regarding Jesus and Judas Iscariot, is a good introduction to the rest of the story, and also sets the tone for what follows. While it is a fictionalized scene not found in the Bible, it seems natural and works well. The rest of the movie likewise does not always follow the biblical narratives exactly, but the added material is always in keeping with the main themes. The cast is pretty good, although given the nature of the story, most of them have limited screen time. H.B. Warner looks just a little too old to be fully convincing as Jesus, but otherwise he is good enough in a difficult role. Probably the best performance is given by Joseph Schildkraut as Judas. He is quite believable, and is especially good in the Last Supper scene. His father Rudolph is also good in a smaller role as the high priest Caiaphas.

With the vast number of movies that are always being made about religious subjects, no doubt it will only be silent movie fans who will seek out this version of "The King of Kings", but that's unfortunate because it is nicely made and has many positives that make it worth seeing.

I first experienced Cecil B. DeMille's beautiful telling of the Life of Christ, his 1927 THE KING OF KINGS, in a local theatre in the late 1950s. It impressed me then as a teenager and it impresses me even more now, having just experienced a special viewing of the double disc DVD that is being released on December 7, 2004 under The Criterion Collection label.

I purchased a 16mm print of this film many years ago as well as buying the Criterion Laser Dics release a few years back, so I am well versed in this classic. Until now, everything shown theatrically, on 16mm, VHS tape and Laser Discs has been of the re-edited version that DeMille prepared in 1928, a year after the film played its roadshow engagements. Millions of people the world over have seen the shorter 112 minute cut, which is included on the Criterion disc with both the original Hugo Riesenfeld score (and sound effects) as issued in 1928, and an outstanding newly recorded pipe organ score by Timothy J. Tikker, done especially for this release.

For years I have been aware that the roadshow version as shown at the Grauman's Chinese Theatre in LA and at the Gaiety in NY, ran 155 minutes, some 37 minutes longer then I had ever seen it. From James D'Arc at the Brigham Young University Archives (which houses the DeMille collection) I learned that the full length version still existed and was in the possession of the DeMille family. That complete version is now the highlight of the Criterion DVD release and it is MARVELOUS!

I've always thought highly of DeMille's THE KING OF KINGS -- but now seeing it in this wonderfully preserved full-length print, complete with an outstanding original orchestra score by Donald Sosin, I can say without hesitation that it is a more spiritually uplifting experience in this version then it ever was in the fine shorter cut. This is a MASTERPIECE, not only of the silent cinema, but of all-time!

And that's not all -- the EXTRA's included on the two DVD's are also a marvel. There is almost 15 minutes of priceless behind-the-scenes footage on the set of the film. You'll see DeMille directing a huge cast and at times view three cameras being hand-cranked. There are shots of D.W. Griffith and Douglas Fairbanks visiting with DeMille on set. There are production and costume sketches by renowned artist Dan Sayre Groesbeck as well as a stills gallery of rare production and publicity photos. The original illustrated theatre program and press book are pictured also -- and there's more. In short this is the finest DVD ever released on a film from the silent era, even surpassing Fox's marvelous job on F.W. Murnau's SUNRISE (also a 1927 release).

In my opinion, DeMille's THE KING OF KINGS in this full version is the finest rendering of the Life of Christ ever put on film! Criterion, known as the leader of fine DVD's, has done it again. Don't hesitate on picking up a copy of this if you love great movies and want a spiritual experience!

The King of Kings is a good movie for the Christian family to watch anytime, but especially around Christian holidays. I was surprised to find the movie quite inspirational. The use of lighting during the black and white periods of film was exceptional. Jesus actually glowed. I did find the use of color detracting from the film. The background music is quite lovely. It was so lovely, that it almost put me to sleep as I saw the movie late at night. But once I made it through the first hour, I was caught up in the music as well as the other film content.I was surprised to find actual singing voices in the movie. I expected the film to be silent. Some of the episodes portrayed seemed a bit mixed up as to when they happened, but they were unimportant details. The text had beautiful script and many times nearly leaped off the page as spoken words. I thought this version was better the 1961 version. I believe that a Christian family might want to include this movie as a permanent addition to their movie library. Popcorn may be okay, especially for the younger crowd, but once the film really gets going, you won't really need it -- it'll become a distraction. Enjoy the film!

This may be one of the very best movies made about Christ. In the beginning I didn't really know what they were doing. It looked like they were making their own story up. But things got better and better as the movie went on. There were so many effective images in this movie that it is unforgettable.

The magic starts when Jesus is finally introduced. What an entrance he makes. A blind girl goes to Jesus for help. There is a bright light and you can tell by the little girl's performance that something is happening. Our view gets blurry because we are seeing through the little girl's eyes. Then the picture comes into focus and we can see Jesus standing in front of her. From that moment on the movie was amazing.

H.B. Warner is one of the greatest actors to portray Jesus. He has such a commanding presence in the movie. He does look a little old to be playing Jesus. At the time of Christ's crucifixion he was around 30. Warner was around 50. But this does not hurt the film at all. Warner does not look like an old man one bit and he had the perfect eyes and perfect face for the part he was playing. In the crucifixion scene when you see H.B. Warner without his shirt it's amazing how he has the perfect built to play Christ.

There were so many things that amazed me. The movie was silent, but it didn't even matter. There were so many effective images. This is what people went to the movies for before there were talking pictures. The first amazing scene was the scene when Jesus cures the blind girl. That was very well done. Every scene of Jesus performing a miracle was amazing. The Last Supper scene was very well done. When everyone leaves the table, the cup that Jesus was drinking from is shimmering. That would later become the Holy Grail. Throughout the movie Jesus is a glowing image. This added to Warner's presence in the film. The scene when Jesus is condemned was very well done and accurate. I was glad they got Pontius Pilate right in the movie. Pilate did not want to kill Jesus. The film also shows you how his wife truly felt. In this movie you see Pilate send Christ to be chastised rather than put to death. After the scourging, you see the people condemn him. You even get to see Pilate washing his hands. People complained about how Gibson's Passion of the Christ made Pilate look, but no one complained when they did the same in this. It is widely known that Pilate was not a villain. The King of Kings that came later in 1961 failed miserably in how it portrayed Pontius Pilate, not to mention a lot of other things. Seeing this makes you wonder what King of Kings with Jeffrey Hunter would've been like if Demille made it. Too bad he didn't.

My favorite scene in the movie would have to be the Resurrection. You will know why when you see the movie. Seeing everyone hugging Jesus in the end was so heartwarming. In the end you even get to see Jesus ascend into heaven. That was all very well done. The special effects in the movie were unbelievable. I was surprised how great they were. The movie was made in 1927. The storm after Christ commends his spirit is an awesome display. Amazing special effects. Seeing H.B. Warner on the cross is also a haunting sight. He really looked the part.

The final thing that I must praise is the performances by the actors. Everyone was great. Every single person in the cast. Everybody looked the part that they were playing. It was amazing. Dorothy Cumming was the perfect choice to play the Virgin Mary. Ernest Torrence was great as Peter. Victor Varconi was great as Pontius Pilate. Joseph Schildkraut was great as Judas. I couldn't believe that was the old man I saw on the Twilight Zone. In this movie Judas is a handsome young man and it is also the first movie were I've seen Judas without a beard. Schildkraut's interpretation of Judas will be something very new to you, but it turns out great. His performance was especially good when you see him in agony over betraying Jesus until you finally see him hang himself. Jacqueline Logan was a great choice to play Mary Magdalene. She was very attractive and great in the scene when Jesus casts the seven deadly sins out of her. Great effects in that scene too. Joseph Schildkraut's father Rudolph Schildkraut was also great as Caiaphas. This movie shows him for the villain that he was. Again, nobody complained about that in this, but they complained about Gibson's movie. Finally, H.B. Warner was great. I couldn't believe that was Mr. Gower from It's A Wonderful Life.

This is one of the greatest movies you will ever see about Jesus Christ. This is way better than King of Kings with Jeffrey Hunter. This movie was for the most part, very accurate. The special effects were great. The direction by Cecil B. DeMille was great. Again, too bad he didn't do the Jeffrey Hunter one. The performances by the actors were great. The King of Kings is an amazing movie and you will not soon forget the images that you see. Be sure to see this one. I promise you will not be disappointed.

The silent factor doesn't hurt THE KING OF KINGS. As seen on TCM with an appropriate background score and all of the two-strip Technicolor scenes intact, it's stunning visually and impressive from beginning to end. Of course, some of the acting belongs strictly to the silent period but overall the performances are right on target.

H.B. WARNER is touching as Jesus, but Joseph SCHILDKRAUT is the standout in the cast, portraying Judas with great skill and conviction. ERNEST TORRENCE as Peter is effective too. DOROTHY CUMMING as Mary does a sympathetic job and VICTOR VARCONI makes an impressive Pontious Pilate. JACQUELINE LOGAN makes a vivid impression as Mary Magdelene. Child actor MICHAEL D. MOORE is excellent as Mark.

The sets and costumes are opulent, as one expects in a De Mille epic, and the story is told at an even pace that belies the fact that it's extremely lengthy for a silent film of this period. TCM showed the full version.

While the director took liberties with Biblical text to create a vivid cinematic work, it faithfully follows all of the main threads of the greatest story ever told. The film is enhanced by the silent factor since it does allow the viewer to use his imagination when it comes to the voice of Jesus.

Summing up: Must rank among the great silent films--well worth viewing.

Trivia note: Interesting to spot WILLIAM BOYD (Hopalong Cassidy) as Simon of Cyrene who helps Jesus carry the cross. He's very effective.

King of Kings is an extraordinary movie. I was so caught up in it if they had said in the credits "Jesus as played by himself" I would have believed it. The scenes of the little blind boy finding his way to Jesus, and the interaction between Jesus and the little children stand out as the high points of the movie. There is a "healing" while with the little children that stands out as one of the finest movie moments ever.

It is a silent movie, but if you get caught up like me, you will swear there was talking as you look back on it.

I saw it in May of 1977 at the 50th anniversary of the Graumanns Chinese theater in Hollywood. It had opened 50 years ago that night with its first movie being King of Kings. Interesting, the next night was the premier of the first Star Wars movie.

Mr. DeMille's daughter or niece shared anecdotes about the filming after the movie. For example, there is a seen during the last supper, where, after everyone gets up and walks away a dove comes and lands on the table by the holy grail and gets lost in the lighting special effect. She informed us it was not planned.

She told us the movie played somewhere in the world every night for 46 years. And in South America, people would get on their knees in the theaters after the performance.

Powerful movie and very moving.

I found this silent classic to be very impressive for its day with its "big" look and grand special effects (like in the final massive earthquake and the resurrection scene). Cecil B. Demille took a few liberties and made a change or two from the actual scriptures, but overall there were a lot of faithful moments from the bible which he managed to include; which sometimes calls attention to elements from the scriptures he missed. This being my very first look at this, I watched it at a time where I wasn't really in quite the right mood for it, so I would guess it would play even stronger to me at the proper time. *** out of ****

Movie follows the story of Jesus Christ (H.B. Warner) starting with Mary Magdelene (Jacqueline Logan) and ending with his resurrection.

While not exactly accurate (Magdalene was Judas' lover?) to the Bible this is actually an excellent movie. It's very reverent to the story and doesn't preach to the audience like other Biblical movies did. Some of the shots of Jesus were stunning--he (literally) GLOWS. It's all done with lighting but it looks realistic. And since it's directed by Cecil B. DeMille it's a spectacle--this movie is BIG! The sets are colossal, there's a cast of hundreds and a big huge Crucifiction sequence that is quite impressive. There's also some nice special effects--surprising in a movie that's over 70 years old. Also, it's well-cast. The standouts are Warner as Jesus; Logan making a very impressive Magdelene and Joseph Schildkraut playing a very young and handsome Judas. Also his father Rudolph Schildkraut plays Caiaphas. And the Resurrection sequence at the end is in two-color Technicolor.

This is a much better than the 1961 remake. That one was badly cast (Jeffrey Hunter was way too young for the role), too long (almost 3 hours) and dragged. This one is barely 2 hours and moves very quickly.

A very impressive silent film--well worth catching.

For a silent religious film this is quite good. H.B. Warner plays Jesus. He looks about twenty years too old for the part (didn't Jesus die when he was 33?) and spends too much of his time looking pious while holding his hands out the way Jesus does in the drawings. His beard looks false, and you can almost imagine the make-up guy standing just off camera sweating over whether a corner is about to detach itself from Warner's face.

The film doesn't follow Jesus's early life. He's already causing quite a stir in the Holy Land by the time we catch up with him, and almost half of the film takes place after Judas has betrayed him, probably because Hollywood felt it needed to add some kind of suspense to the story to sell it to the great unwashed. For a DeMille film the excesses are mostly reined in apart from a couple of huge sets. There's a lot of dialogue, and most of it is comprised of sound-bites from the Bible that are still instantly recognisable. You know the sort of thing: the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Maybe this was also an attempt to keep the masses involved because I remember thinking as I watched that it was strange that all the catchy lines appear in the second half of the Bible. Perhaps there was some judicious shifting around of the good book's catchiest phrases. Not being a religious man, I wouldn't know.

While the pace is fairly slow by today's standards, the last reel, which follows the resurrection of Christ, still retains some of its power and must have been really impressive in its day. There's even a couple of colour scenes to emphasise the miracle we are witnessing.

King of Kings, The (1927)

**** (out of 4)

It's interesting that Mel Gibson was originally going to show The Passion of the Christ without any subtitles because he felt the story spoke loudly enough and that audience members would know the story well enough so words weren't really needed. With The King of Kings being a silent film the silence really adds to the story but on the other hand, unlike Gibson it's very apparent that DeMille wasn't quite sure whether the audience would know the story good enough and that leads to the film's one weak spot. The film probably would have lost a good twenty-minutes if it weren't for all the intertitles, which become quite annoying because it's easy to read the lips of what the actors are saying. Even with that one flaw DeMille created one of the greatest tellings of the story of Jesus.

The first hour and half deals with Jesus (H.B. Warner) as he walks the Earth with his disciples where he cures the blind and helps the cripple to walk. The second hour then turns to the crucifixion and eventual resurrection and with each passing frame you can tell this is a film being made by someone very passionate about the subject matter. The great lengths DeMille went through to create this film have become somewhat legendary. The director would have ministers bless the film each day before filming and even made his actors sign papers swearing they wouldn't get into any trouble to where the audiences might not believe them in their part.

I find it quite odd to bash a religious film for not staying true to the source material because no movie ever has and I'm sure one never will. DeMille adds some interesting changes including having Mark be a young boy who is cured by Jesus but the most infamous change is the romance between Judas and Maria Magdalene. According to the liner notes, this so-called romance was a German legend but why DeMille decided to use it is anyone's guess. DeMille also said that the Jews were the most unfairly treated in the Bible and to avoid any anti-Semitic controversy, it's made quite clear that Rome was behind the deeds of that certain day.

As I said earlier, The King of Kings is epic in scale but DeMille thankfully never goes over the top and remembers that the story is the most important thing to make a movie work. Each and every frame is told in such loving care that it doesn't take any time for the film to transfer you back and make it seem as if you're actually there witnessing these events on your own. The lavished sets and thousands of extras also add a great deal of realism to the story and W.B. Warner, while a bit too old for the role, delivers a remarkable performance where he tells every feeling of Jesus with a simple look or body gesture.

The film is also quite moving especially the scenes with Jesus working with a group of sick people. DeMille usually slows the pace down so that we can see the love these sick people felt for Jesus and that clearly jumps right off the screen. DeMille also makes sure to show Jesus as a mythical character who can work wonders and most importantly, the film allows Jesus to be seen as someone who knows what love is and knows his mission in life.

When Jesus is working these wonders the director usually has a light shining on him, which would come off as camp but once again DeMille knew how far to push this and the effect works quite nicely. Another wonderful thing is that DeMille allows some humor to be thrown in with the off-screen violence. The best example of this is the guards getting ready to put the crown of thorns on Jesus but they keep hurting their hands trying to make it.

Another wonderful scene has a little girl asking Jesus to heal her doll, which has had a leg broken off.

Perhaps this was the showman side of DeMille coming into play but the director decided to film the resurrection with Technicolor. In the 1927 "Premier" version, Technicolor is also used at the very beginning of the film but soon fades to black and white when Jesus is introduced. The resurrection sequence with the use of color perfectly brings the detail of a life returning back to the Earth. It's rather hard to put it into words but when the B&W fades and the color comes shining through, with this little experiment DeMille is able to create some wonderful emotions and get his point across very quietly.

There have been dozens of religious movies since The King of Kings (including a remake) but I feel this one here is a film that would appeal to everyone no matter what their personal beliefs are. This is classic DeMille, which shows his talent at storytelling as well as his showmanship of delivering a spectacle like no other.

I'm not a religious man. Nevertheless, I found this to be a very moving picture.

Or series of pictures. So many of the shots are very clearly carefully set up, often to evoke famous paintings.

The use of light, though simple given the techniques of the day, is often very effective.

The story is told to include all the well-known episodes in the story of Christ. The pace is leisurely, but never too slow. Each scene is developed to its fullest.

And the acting - which is to say the faces - are sometimes remarkable.

If you're used to action movies, you'll never get through this. But if you can adopt yourself to its pace, you'll be amazed how effective this movie is.

Cecil B. DeMille produced this masterpiece over 90 years ago and it still retains its great power and reverence. Everyone associated with the production put their heart and soul into this work and it certainly shows on screen. The photography and background music score are to be particularly commended. By the way, any on-screen violence during the scourging and crucifixion sequences were kept to a minimum. Parents can view this film with their children and have no concerns. For some reason, this has very limited play on television in the United States. TCM plays the film on occasion. That cable channel seems to be the only place to watch this wonderful film. The Kino video tape and Criterion DVD release remain available for purchase. The DVD offers the original premiere cut and the shorter sound reissue. Some important sequences are shown in the uncut 155 minute version ( such as Peter's denial of Jesus). The sound reissue version is missing slightly less than 30 minutes and this is the one most people have seen throughout the years. Both versions are superb in their own way. This film will truly touch your heart. By all means, seek it out. A true silent classic.

Jesus Christ (H. B. Warner) faces religious and political oppression during his ministry and in the days before his death and resurrection.

While this was not the first telling of the Jesus story on film, it was probably the first epic telling, or at least the first really good epic telling. The film is now 90 years old but could still be shown in theaters today and appreciated by audiences, whether they happen to be Christian or not. It is just fine film-making.

The film is the second in Cecil DeMille's biblical trilogy, preceded by "The Ten Commandments" (1923) and followed by "The Sign of the Cross" (1932). Perhaps more people should be watching these films than the far more popular Charlton Heston version.

Some people seem to think that to enjoy a picture like this you have to be a devout Christian who can be touched by its message. Poppycock! Even an atheist like me appreciates a good story well told. That is why I love the religious pictures of Cecil B. DeMille.

Indeed, watching a picture like King of Kings, you actually sometimes have to question the slant of DeMille's own faith. Like many of the more prestigious productions of the era, it contains a couple of two-strip Technicolor sequences. Now, what should be the first scene in the story of Jesus to be given the distinction of the colour treatment? The first appearance of the messiah? His baptism? A miracle? No – it is the opening scene, an apocryphal depiction of the court of Mary Magdalene, in her prostitute days. You see, it seems that DeMille could not help but depict sin as bold, glamorous and alluring, something that is consistent with the director's less-than-holy private life.

But despite the opening, this is actually one of DeMille's most tender and reverent portrayals of a religious subject. You may notice how, in comparison to a lot of mainstream pictures of the late silent era (such as Wings, Sunrise and The Crowd), King of Kings features very little camera movement. DeMille instead gives great grace and power to the still image. The acting is slow and stately – there is barely a sudden movement in the whole two-and-a-half hours. The exceptional cinematography of Peverell Marley gives a soft-focus glow to the figure of the Christ. The Messiah is associated throughout with doves, with one or two of the birds appearing in some corner of the frame at significant moments. Among the most delicate touches is DeMille's tenuous hinting at the tortures inflicted during the scourging of Jesus, which are never directly shown, but described in eerie shadows, the cruel glances of the Romans and the guilt-ridden reaction of Judas.

For the title role DeMille selected H.B. Warner, who would later become a very reliable character actor in the sound era, receiving an Oscar-nomination for Lost Horizon, and even winding up as one of the "waxworks" in Sunset Boulevard. At 52 Warner was perhaps a little too old for the part (especially if you check out the date of birth of Dorothy Cumming, who plays his ma), but he has an appropriate serenity to him, giving us a weary and melancholy Messiah who appears to know his own fate. Playing Judas (hyped-up by Jeanie MacPherson's script into an even bigger villain than he is in the bible) we have – of course! – Joseph Schildkraut. This picture cemented Schildkraut's typecasting as the archetypal sharp-featured villain. And this wasn't such a bad thing, because it at least meant that your sharp-featured villain would be an extremely good actor, and a devilishly handsome one at that. Speaking of which, we also have the fiendishly good-looking Victor Varconi as Pontius Pilate, whose brief appearance leaves a deep impression.

This being DeMille and the screenwriter being Jeanie MacPherson (please see my comments on their earlier collaborations for more on her), King of Kings does have its fair share of daftness amid the drama. The device of the blind girl being healed and seeing the light, is an excellent one, but it is spoiled by the fact the DeMille did not seem to realise that blindness does not mean having your eyelids glued together. And there are the usual MacPherson oddities among the title cards, my favourite of which is the delightfully surreal command "Harness my zebras!" Yes, DeMille's po-faced preaching often verged on self-parody (and genuine parody would follow – compare the resurrection of Lazarus to the bringing to life of the monster in 1931's Frankenstein), but his command of cinematic form was masterly. Sit back and enjoy King of Kings. This is the beautiful and dignified faithfulness of a stained-glass tableau or a choir singing Bach, quite a lovely thing to behold regardless of one's own beliefs.

Out of all the biblical stories Cecil B. Demille attempted on screen,this picture is probably the most decent one after his 1956 remake of The Ten Commandments. The way he tells the gospel is fairly decent for the generation of those times compared to MGM's remake in 1961. It seemed more secular the way Nicholas Ray filmed than Cecil B. Demille. Plus the major contrast is that H.B. Warner's Christ is much older than Jeffrey Hunter's Christ. Demille was possibly seeking a man with a fatherly image or face just like George Stevens did when he selected Max Von Sydow to portray Christ. The scriptural quotes as the film goes along is an original idea. Demille should have done that in his other biblical films also.

My first memory of this film was getting up at 5 or 6 am to see this on a local PBS station in the 1970's. I thought it was cool that they were showing an old silent film that had some color sequences. The film has always danced around my brain. When Criterion put out the double disc I picked it up mostly out of curiosity.

Watching for the film for the first time in decades I was struck by how moving the film is. Certainly its over done and over blown and all of the things you think of when you think of silent movies, however its also very human. Amazingly Jesus laughs, smiles and has a real presence as a human being, which is missing from most other versions of the tale. Think of the sound King of Kings, The Greatest Story Ever Told, Passion of the Christ all are so stiff as to be dull and laughable. Yes some of the piety is laughable, but there is also tears. At the beginning when Jesus heals the blind girl its heard not to weep at the beauty of it. Even Jesus is happy at the turn of events.

And then there is the spectacle, Mary Magdalene's home, the crucifixion, the resurrection are grand movie spectacle moments. silent or not 80 years old or not, the scenes still make you go "wow" even after all of the advances in computer generated effects.

This is a great movie. Its not perfect, there are silly moments, but there is more than enough to make you wonder if the Hollywood and filmmakers elsewhere should have ever bothered to try to duplicate the magic of this film and the story it tells.

As biblical epics go, this is probably the best in my book. Cecil B. De Mille has crafted a masterpiece of silent cinema depicting the tale of the Christ from the beginnings of his journey until the resurrection. Using partly scripted and actual verses from the bible, the intertitles are expertly spaced to offer support to the dialogue when required, but largely we are left to follow the story with the grand scale imagery doing the talking for it. The detail is meticulous - costumes, sets etc, as you would expect - but the use of light and shade, particularly at the end, is magnificent. The characterisations from HB Warner as Jesus; Joseph Schildkraut (Judas) and Jacqueline Logan as the courtesan Mary Magdalene, replete with zebra-driven chariot all contribute to a rich, extensive, cast whose facial expressions carry far more weight than any words might do. Long? Well it's not, actually - the enterprise flies by (I saw it beautifully accompanied by the Sosin 2004 score) and if you've any interest in the history of cinema (or Christianity) then this is a must watch.

Cecil B. DeMille was a director remembered for a great many things. He was a perfectionist, he was strict, he filled his motion pictures with authenticity and spectacle, he worked on enormous sets, he controlled his cast and crew with meticulous planning and conditions, and he is most certainly remembered along with his masterpieces, such as this glorious piece of craftsmanship from 1927. "The King of Kings", another one of DeMille's biblical epics, this one from the silent era, tells the famous story of Jesus of Nazareth, starting from his emergence into fame throughout the land, to his crucifixion, and ultimately to his resurrection from the dead in what is possibly, even now, eighty-two years later, the most wonderful film adaptation ever.

Cecil B. DeMille regarded "The King of Kings" as one of his greatest achievements and I can easily understand why. If I myself created a film as magnificent as this, I would be proud of myself. "The King of Kings" is one of the greatest, if not THE greatest silent film ever made. Even at a length of nearly three hours (which was almost unheard of during the silent era), it rarely slows down and even when it does, it doesn't stay there for long. Again, there is DeMille's long takes, but it is so full of spectacle and wonder and power that one cannot help but keep their eyes locked upon the screen.

What I really admired about "The King of Kings" is not only is the fact that it is a fairly accurate telling of the story of Jesus, but that it creates a sense of spectacle and wonder about God and His son. Jesus is not even seen until nearly thirty minutes into the film and uses the previous half-hour to develop his character with word of mouth from the other characters and when we do see him (as he performs one of God's miracles) and we see him emerge, it's as though we were really there, those centuries ago, when he walked the earth because we are absorbed by the majesty and understand what people at the time must have felt standing in his presence. DeMille uses wonderful cinematic tricks and special effects that even today boggle our minds with how they could have been done under so primitive of conditions, and creates a sense of awe about the power of God, the gracefulness of Jesus Christ, and the sorrow that plagued the hearts of his followers when the Romans nailed him onto the cross, subjecting him to several hours of unimaginable torture and suffering.

Not only is "The King of Kings" a film full of substance, but it also has a tremendous amount of style, which is a given since it was directed by DeMille. Like with both of his versions of the Ten Commandments (one made in 1923 and the other, more famous one in 1956), DeMille uses life-sized sets of extraordinary detail to give presence to this gone world he's recreating. DeMille was a persnickety director; he paid attention to the smallest, inconceivable details, for it meant a lot to him in the impact of his films. And when we see these temples and palaces and villages and the people in them, it's like we're looking into the past itself.

According to Robert Osbourne of Turner Classic Movies, it's estimated that over a billion people have seen Cecil B. DeMille's "The King of Kings" and the fact that it's often regarded as the best film version of the story of Jesus means it will remain in our collective conscience for at least a long while more. Here's one that it will always linger in. Out of all of the films to watch on the Easter holiday, this is the quintessential choice.