The King of Kings [1961]

Since CNN is airing that epic biblical spectacle right now The King of Kings , which came out back in 1961 and is easily one of the best movies ever made about Jesus—standing right up there with Passion of the Christ Mel Gibson's work and the Jesus of Nazareth miniseries—I figured it was the perfect time to start a thread dedicated to this film.



The movie was directed by Nicholas Ray, and you’ve got Jeff Chandler playing Jesus. He’s a pretty iconic actor, especially since he played Captain Christopher Pike in the Star Trek pilot episode, The Cage.

Besides Hunter, the cast is packed with heavy hitters like Robert Ryan (John the Baptist), Rip Torn (Judas Iscariot), and Frank Thring (Herod Antipas)—who you might also recognize from his role as Pontius Pilate in Ben-Hur. Plus, we have Orson Welles handling the narration.

One thing that really sets this movie apart is the score; it was composed by Miklós Rózsa, the genius behind the soundtracks for Ben-Hur, El Cid, and Quo Vadis
.

TRAILER
MOVIE TRAILER WIKIPEDIA IMDB

Wikipedia
IMDB

You can't even put Passion of the Christ in the same sentence as this movie.

Personally, this is the best film about Jesus ever made.

Hands down, the best movie about Jesus ever made. For me personally, and just looking at the genre as a whole, it’s easily the top biblical flick out there. Let’s be real though—you aren't watching Passion of the Christ for the religious lessons, you're watching it for Monica Bellucci.

stormyridge2 said:People only watch the Passion of the Christ for Monica Bellucci, not for Jesus.

Red Cross, but honestly, I find that statement pretty insulting.

When I'm in the mood for Jesus, I'm looking at the King of Kings, but when I feel like watching Mary Magdalene, I dive straight into the Passion.

So, here’s the deal according to the latest buzz: if you don't absolutely love some movie based on the Bible, suddenly you're the bad guy. Apparently, if you judge it like an actual film instead of treating it like some sacred scripture, or if you watch it for any reason other than being totally awestruck by the religious themes—like, say, just appreciating the cinematography or the cast
—then you're officially "offending" people. It's ridiculous.
Honestly, we should be pretty terrified of what kind of thoughts are actually allowed these days. ☕

Bryan Rogers87 said:So, according to this new logic, if we don't absolutely love some movie based on the Bible, it’s considered an insult. Or if we watch it and judge it as just a film rather than a sacred text, or if our motivation isn't purely being awestruck by the religious themes (like, say, just enjoying the view of Monica Bellucci), then apparently we're offending people too.

People should honestly be more afraid of certain types of thinking ☕

It's true, we really should be worried about ideas like how it's perfectly fine for gay people to adopt children. But hey, those are different topics altogether...

As for me feeling insulted, it's really just because stormyridge2 is claiming that everyone watches the Passion just to see Bellucci, which is total nonsense. Maybe he watches it for that reason, but not everyone does, and I certainly don't. If I'm going to watch a Bellucci movie, I'll definitely pick one where she actually stands out way more.

Frank Moore4 said:Truthfully, people should probably be terrified of the idea that it’s somehow "normal" for gay people to adopt kids. But hey, that's a whole different rabbit hole altogether...

And as for me being offended? It's not about that. It's just that Alex is out here claiming everyone is watching the Passion just because of Monica Bellucci, which is total nonsense. Maybe he is, but not everyone else—certainly not me. If I'm ever going to watch a Bellucci flick, I'll pick one where she actually has a decent role.

My point was simply about movies. Doesn't matter if it's religious—like this biblical stuff—or a book, a painting, music, whatever. You get what I mean?

I don't get why anyone, including you, would feel insulted just because someone says they don't like a movie or thinks it's bad, or even says they're only watching it for the actress. I really don't see how that could possibly offend anyone in any way.

That first thing you brought up just shows how much you love slapping unnecessary labels on things. Like, based on one guy's comment about a movie, you've suddenly decided he also believes "it's normal for gay people to adopt kids." That's a massive leap.🤣

The Passion is such a terrible movie that even Monica can't save it.

They just went for shock value and nothing else.

Austin Rodriguez5 said:The Passion is such a garbage movie that even Monica can't save it.

They just went for shock value and nothing else.

I wouldn't put it quite like that. Personally, I don't think the Passion is a bad film at all—actually, quite the opposite. The reason it feels so shocking to people is because, up until now, biblical myths have almost always been shown through this romanticized, glorified lens where everything is wrapped in flowery language and high-minded melodrama... But if we're talking about the actual biblical myth, if Jesus suffered the way he did—through Roman crucifixion—then the Passion is way, way closer to "reality" than any other depiction of that part of the Bible we've seen before...

The fact that it hits people hard isn't a flaw in the filmmaking... It makes you wonder, though, how you actually imagine those moments of suffering and crucifixion looked?

Obviously, it’s easy to see why a lot of believers find it easier to cling to some romanticized vision of Jesus's suffering rather than facing a hyper-realistic portrayal of the kind of Roman torture that was actually happening back then.

Bryan Rogers87 said:If we take the biblical account at face value—that Jesus suffered through Roman crucifixion—then this depiction of the Passion is far closer to "reality" than any other portrayal of that event we've seen until now...
.

It is much more realistic to assume he was scourged and crucified as traditionally depicted, rather than just being left to rot for days on end.🤷

Anyway, debating the absolute reality of it all is pointless. 👍

It just bothers me that they opted for shock value instead of focusing their efforts on more significant details.

That's just my take, if you're happy with your version. 😉

I think I read somewhere that researchers have uncovered evidence suggesting Jesus underwent far more intense suffering during His Passion than most people realize.

rustywalker1 said:I read somewhere that they found evidence suggesting Jesus endured far more agony during His death than most people realize.

Everything you read on the internet is absolute truth.👍>

Austin Rodriguez5 said:It’s way more believable that they whipped him and crucified him like everything else shows, rather than just letting him rot away for days on end🤷

Anyway, talking about what’s actually "realistic" here is kind of pointless 👍

It just bugs me that they went for shock value instead of putting that effort into other, more important details.

That’s just my two cents, if you think it’s great, fine by me 😉

Actually, there’s plenty of sense in discussing reality—especially when we're looking at how Roman torture worked, where crucifixion was the grand finale. Nothing in this movie was made up out of thin air. Since that was the standard punishment for slaves and the absolute worst criminals in Rome, I'm telling you, Gibson's portrayal is probably much closer to the truth than anything else out there. It doesn't matter whether I personally dig it or not...

And I don't think the whole point was just being edgy or showing pain for the sake of it. The point was to show that everyone loves to talk about patience and martyrdom, but nobody actually wants to face the gritty details. People prefer the sanitized version, like, "Oh, he got whipped a little, then crucified, and that was that." Anyway, the crucifixion is the core of the movie, but that doesn't even kick in until about the 50-minute mark. For the most part, the film stays pretty faithful to the Bible (aside from a few artistic choices, let's call them "creative liberties").

Myth?! Fine, have it your way... everyone has the free will that God gave them, including you people claiming the Savior of the world is just a myth... It doesn't matter, though; every single one of us is going to look God in the eye and answer for how we lived our lives.

Austin Rodriguez5 said:Everything you read online is absolute truth.👍

And where exactly did you get your info? Firsthand experience?🤣🤣

rustywalker1 said:And where exactly did you get your information? Firsthand knowledge? 🤣🤣

Yes, just like those "scientists" of yours.🤣
At least I don't parade around claiming "hard evidence." I simply stated my opinion, and I have clearly noted multiple times that this is merely my own perspective. 👍
Now, go ahead and point out where I am actually making a definitive claim. 🤷

Well, they put him through it, but they weren't trying to cause excessive pain. Just a little bit.

rustywalker1 said:Well, sure, they tortured him, but they tried not to make it hurt too much. Just a little bit.

👍

I simply stated that I don't care for such brutal depictions, and that's why I think the movie is bad. Don't try to twist my words now 😉
It felt more like they were just chasing a paycheck through hype and shock value rather than actually telling a story. Again, that's just my opinion.

Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit if you're grasping at straws 😉 👍 moving on.

Austin Rodriguez5 said:👍

Look, I just said the movie sucked because the violence was way too over-the-top for me. Don't try to twist my words into something they aren't 😉
It felt more like they were just chasing a quick buck by using shock value and hype instead of actually telling a decent story. Again, that's just how I saw it.

Total lack of reading comprehension and nitpicking here 😉 👍 moving on.

I don't think that's really the point, though. If they wanted to go that route, they would have risked alienating a huge chunk of the audience (think about the rating). It ended up with an R-rating, but they could've easily pushed it to an NC-17, which isn't exactly a gold mine for box office returns...