Description
“A magnificent film, handled with reverence, artistic appreciation and admirable restraint” (NewYork Daily News), this glorious epic is an inspiring, grand-scale recreation of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, from His humble birth and teachings to His crucifixion and ultimate Resurrection. Lavishly produced at a cost of $20 millionan enormous amount for the timeand honored with five 1965 Academy AwardÂ(r) nominations*, this exceptional motion picture is exquisitely beautiful… More >>
#1 by Chris H. on March 23, 2010 - 12:11 pm
This ranks down there with “Gospel Of john” as my least favorite Biblical movies.The horrible acting and dialog are totally devoid of feeling.My favorite in this theme,is still “King Of Kings”,and though Jeffrey Hunter plays another blue-eyed Jesus,in my opinion this is still the ONLY Biblical movie with a truly likeable Jesus character and that whole film really touches me,where the above two mentioned,make me feel nothing!The acting is so bad that both of those actually make me feel aggravated! Sorry, but “King Of Kings” rules for me!
Rating: 1 / 5
#2 by MUSICPOET on March 23, 2010 - 3:07 pm
THERE IS NOTHING TO SAY!!!! THE MUSIC SCORE WAS ONLY THING WORTH MENTIONING. IT WAS BEAUTIFUL AND INSPIRATIONAL!!!! JESUS WAS IN HIS EARLY THIRTIES. MAX VON SYDOW LOOKED LIKED FIFTY!!!!
EXTREMELY POOR CHOICE! JEFFERY HUNTER PORTAYED A MOST FITTING JESUS IN “KING OF KINGS!!!!” THIS FILM WAS A TRUE DIAPPOINTMENT!!!! EVEN TO SEE AND HEAR JOHN WAYNE SPEAK HIS ONE LINE AS A ROMAN CENTURION,”THREW ME FOR A LOOP!!!!” HEY PILGRIM, YOU WERE IN THE WRONG PICTURE!!!!
“KING OF KINGS” IS THE GREATEST LIVING PORTRAYAL OF JESUS OF NAZARETH!!!! AND ALWAYS WILL BE!!!! THIS ONE FALL FLAT!!!!
Rating: 1 / 5
#3 by Charles Voogd on March 23, 2010 - 5:24 pm
Now I know why this movie was nicknamed ‘The Slowest Story Ever Told’. The only thing I particularly liked was Alfred Newman’s great music score. He cleverly uses bits form Handel’s Messiah and Verdi’s Requiem and composes a Bach-like music that caries much of the picture through it’s dullest moments.
I think all the scenes could have done in half the time and I think that would’ve given a likeable movie. But not this way.
I got bored and my legs sored at the end.
Rating: 1 / 5
#4 by R. Lewis on March 23, 2010 - 6:32 pm
A classic example of overblown insensitive Hollywood biblical-epic filmaking. Unlike the sensitively told and awe-inspiring King Of Kings, TGSET is an overlong and unmoving experience for the viewer from start to finish, from it’s corny cinematography (which makes the movie look like a Hallmark greeting card come to life) to it’s unbelievably crass casting, including Pat Boone, Shelly Winters, and most notoriously John Wayne as a Roman soldier(“this truly was the son of Gaawd!”). Among all the hammy scenery-chewing acting, the only person to really shine is the wonderful Max Von Sydow who sensitively attempts to portray Jesus, though his Swedish accent kind of ruins everything. Film fans would be much better off buying King Of Kings or The Gospel According To Matthew.
Rating: 1 / 5
#5 by nom-de-nick on March 23, 2010 - 7:01 pm
I’m honestly wondering if many of those folks who gave this 5-star rave reviews saw the same film as I have, several times…
First, you need to separate the subject matter from the film. Just becauise the film is about the life of Jesus doesn’t automatically make it an untouchable masterpiece of cinema.
While I definitely give Stevens his props — there are some truly magnificently-done scenes here, and the film as a whole remains watchable — the attempt to, it seems, put most of Hollywood in the film willy-nilly almost sunk the whole thing. In addition, certain elements of Christ’s life one would consider key are completely glossed over.
Von Sydow (who incidentally, may be the only actor to have played both Jesus and Satan, not to mention an exorcist) tries; he really does. He makes an interesting Christ, certainly far more believable than Jeffrey Hunter’s blue-eyed, always immaculately-groomed version in King of Kings. His acting ranges from OK to incredible, and he’s on-screen for almost the entire film. He brings a definite sincerity and warmth to the role, even if the scipt gets a bit too heavy-handed at times, but in the final analysis, his peformance alone isn’t enough to sustain the whole movie.
The rest of the cast is split between just OK or just plain wrong/bad. Dorothy Macquire as Mary was… well, an unexpected choice, but she actually fared far better than many others. The actress who played Mary Magdeline was completely mediocre;in this film, maybe Claudia Cardinale would’ve been the best choice.
Claude Rains could’ve phoned in his part. Sidney Poiter,Roddy M, Martin Landau and even Sal MIneo were surprisingly effective.
But some of the other casting was just strange or ill-conceived.
Watch the film objectively and see if you don’t agree with some of this:
Both Heston and Ferrer (and even Pleasance) were WAY over the top, and not in a good way at all. Telly Savalas looked like he was bored, and delivered his lines appropriately. The Barabbas scene was flatter than a surfboard. Victor Buono tried too hard to be slimy. Angela Lansbury is a great actress, but was completely wasted here. Van Heflin was trying too hard. Ed Wynn as Isiah and Shelly Winters as a healed person? Huh? And of course, the crown jewel; John Wayne as the Roman officer supervising the crucifixion. His one line brings the definition of “wooden” to dizzying new heights.
They’re only some; there are scores more of miscasts. And yes, while many of them are indeed little more than cameos, they all add up to derail the film from what it could’ve been. As it stands, you actually find yourself laughing at some of the performances. A sincere effort, but too ambitious overall.
Rating: 3 / 5