Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

MartinHafer I have no idea exactly what it means, but the DVD I watched of "The King of Kings" was the roadshow version. Why called 'roadshow' I have no idea, but it's significantly longer than the official version released to the general public. So, it has more than a half hour additional footage. Exactly what extra it has, I really don't know.The film is interesting because it is different from some other films about the life of Christ. It does not start with his birth but begins in the weeks before his crucifixion. As for Jesus, his version starring H.B. Warner is pretty good--mostly because he lacks the ridiculously long hair and angelic visage in some films. He does, occasionally, sport a halo--a rather old fashioned look. However, he is a bit more human than some Jesus portrayals--as he smiles a bit. I wish that Jesus smiled a lot more in films and behaved like a more normal guy, but I have yet to see this sort of Christ in film. And, while it might sound morbid, I wish the crucifixion had been a bit more bloody and realistic (I am NOT talking about to the extent of "The Passion of the Christ", but there is practically no blood at all in the "The King of Kings")--an impossibility.In some ways, the story seems a bit more like a Catholic version of the last days of Jesus. Mary is a very traditionally Catholic one--in headdress and with doves--almost angelic. Also, like the Catholics and Church of England, there is an emphasis on the notion of a 'holy grail'--that glowed with mystical powers. These are not so much complaints--more just observations.What I did have a complaint about, however, is the odd timeline used in the film. Again and again, verses and Biblical accounts are mixed up chronologically--with events from early in a Gospel appearing late in his life. In other words, instead of writing a script, it looked almost like they just randomly picked verses from a hat. So, despite lots of verses being used on the intertitle cards (a good touch), the sequence just did not seem all that important--at least not until the last portion of the movie that centered on the death and resurrection. A bit of research and effort would have made a more historically accurate script.Now although I have complained a bit, there isn't that much to dislike about the film--especially in light of when it was made. The sets and costumes are what you'd expect from a Cecil B. DeMille film--top-notch and quite expensive. And, unlike some of DeMille's later works, this film is much more respectful of the characters and is not inundated with smut (yes, smut--as DeMille's early Christian epic "The Sign of the Cross" had bestiality, lesbianism and all sorts of shocking topics in a Christian epic). Additionally, the Two-Color Technicolor was a terrific addition at the beginning and end of the film--really state of the art for 1927 and one of the best examples of this sort of filming. Overall, a terrific silent--one of the best.

Steffi_P 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.

mstytz You can't help but love this movie, for the story, the acting, the effects, the drama, the Biblical quotes. It all comes together so well to tell the story, and does it much better than the Jeffrey Hunter version (which I nevertheless like). In many silent movies, the actors seem to over play their roles to convey the message, but in this movie they are spot on; how could a person over play a scene when he/she first sees a person walking, talking, eating who had been killed three days ago before their very eyes. These actors act in a way that mirrors how normal people would behave when witnessing the miracles and actions reported in the Bible. They are convincing. Make no mistake, this movie is a Christian story; it takes the story of Jesus literally and portrays it. No doubts, no cut-aways, no shadows; its the story of Jesus as told in the Bible put in film. Warner is great in his role, he really does a great job of portraying a believable, accurate Jesus that is majestic, moving, noble, loving, generous, and forgiving as well as Godly. A remarkable performance that seems to have been forgotten merely because it is a silent movie. The music fits the action very well, and the text inserts do not detract from telling the story. I wish they would show this movie more often, I think it would develop a following as it is a truly remarkable movie that takes on the impossible task of portraying the life of Christ as told in the Bible, without gimmicks and without ducking the hard questions, like the Resurrection, and very nearly accomplishes the task. The whole cast is to be lauded for their performances, and of course DeMille does a magnificent job as director, I can hardly wait to see the movie again.

TheUnknown837-1 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.