Reviews (23)

Klute should have been on the AFI list
Klute is one of my favorite films of all time.It ranks right up there with "The Parallax View" as Allan Pakula's best film.Donald Sutherland gives a superb performance as the low-key sensitive cop, Klute, and Jane Fonda is wonderful (as always).The film is brilliant in so many ways. It is very visually striking, perfectly acted, great musical score, I cannot say enough about this movie. It is a quintessential American film that along with so many others from the 70's: Deliverance, The Parallax View, The Conversation, Night Moves, and from the late 60's, Point Blank, was unjustly left of AFI's top 100 movies list.

klute begat blade runner
"Klute" is far above average for the era... evocative music is used with excellent editing to produce what is still a rarity today: a suspenseful, realistic move with characters an audience cares about. Alan Pakula's spare technique is juxtaposed with rich sets and costumes to set a creepy mood, combining beautifully to give the viewer a gradually increasing chill which culminates in a harrowing climax. Certainly one can see the influence "Klute" in such diverse films as "Blade Runner" (particularly in one scene where Bree rides an elevator to the top floor of a dress factory) and "The Blair Witch Project" which relied on similarly subtle hints to freak out the viewer). Add to the mix superb performances by Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland and you have yourself one hell of a film. And something to think about in the bargain.

A Second Rate Thriller
Klute is a movie that aspires to the cult status of Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation but where The Conversation is compelling, Klute is vapid. It simply lacks inventiveness and originality.

Klute is a second-rate thriller. The plot eventually takes on predictability and is short on logic and terror. Klute is one of those movies that looks great but has no real substance. You don't care about the characters.

Klute does not offer any surprises whatsoever and the ending became quite predictable before it was half over. What good is a mystery if everything is pretty obvious and you can guess everything that's about to take place? This attempt at a psychological thriller is mindless. The plot is thin. Guy kills for no apparent reason.

In sum, Klute is a movie to avoid.

Excellent movie - amazing acting. But...
Jane Fonda was pretty unpopular when she did this movie. So she had alot against her to win and Oscar. But her amazing acting shon through and she won. Donald Sutherland was good and contributes to the atmosphere of the movie.

But..
Here's the problem. Warner Brothers have released this film on DVD which means it comes in an annoying card case instead of the usual plastic durable DVD boxes you'd get else where. They dont last as long, and it's harder to put in to a dvd collection when it has totally different dimensions to the rest.
It's quite a job to cut and place in a normal box. For the sake of 25 cence in cost saving, they've doing themselves a diservice. The security tags are hard to get off due to the sticky tag being stuck to [you guessed it] card.

You won't believe it's 30 years old.
This could be a film -about- the late sixties, done today. It's just superb. It holds up so well ... it makes you struggle with the problem of why most other older films become so dated ... Great DVD image, by the way. Very different than watching it on TV. ... Read more

Reviews (66)

An intelligent, inspiring life of Christ.
"King of Kings" was my favorite religious motion picture when growing up, and I believe it still is. When MGM first released it in 1961, movie critics irreverently dubbed it "I Was a Teenage Jesus", since the role of Christ was given to teen idol Jeffrey Hunter. In hindsight, it was an unfair appraisal. Unlike other actors who have played Jesus in the more sublime, "stained-glass" manner that appears to be the norm, Hunter's portrayal showed a very human, energetic Messiah whose divinity still could not be denied. Interestingly enough, "King of Kings" was directed by Nicholas Ray, who six years earlier had directed James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause". This time around, our "Rebel" has a well-defined Cause which places Him at odds with the religious and civil authorities of His day. The film's international supporting cast consists mainly of lesser-known character actors whose performances are mostly able. The great actor/filmmaker Orson Welles gives an uncredited performance as the film's narrator; curiously, the narration was written by science fiction author Ray Bradbury, who is also uncredited. The film's stirring music was composed by Miklos Rozsa, who was no stranger to religious epics (the soundtracks to "Quo Vadis?" and "Ben-Hur" stand out among his other works). Beautifully filmed in Spain, "King of Kings" is an intelligent and reverent profile of He who has been the Way, the Truth, and the Life to hundreds of millions for almost 2000 years. END

Hunter as Jesus Shines!
'King of Kings' features Jeffrey Hunter's finest performance, as a young, dynamic Jesus of Nazareth, and his intrerpretation, open and earnest, is the best part of a movie both uneven and flawed.

Produced by many of the people responsible for 'Ben Hur', the film utilizes some of the same sets, actors (Frank Thring appears in major roles in both films), and composer (Miklos Rozsa, whose score for 'King of Kings' was one of his finest). The cast was fleshed out by respected actors (Robert Ryan is too old but charismatic as John the Baptist, Siobhan McKenna is a glowing Mary, Brigid Bazlen, a deliciously wicked and oversexed Salome, Harry Guardino, an 'over-the-top' Barabbas, a VERY young Rip Torn scores as Judas). While the cast didn't have the 'star power' of 'Ben Hur', or many other Christian epics, the actors, by and large, perform credibly in their roles, particularly Hurd Hatfield and Viveca Lindfors, as Pilate and his wife, Claudia, and Ron Randell as Tribune Lucius.

The film was a MUCH less expensive project than 'Ben Hur'; the budget restraints show most glaringly in recreating Jesus' ministry (most of Christ's miracles are only referred to, not shown), and extras casting (Spanish townspeople, overdubbed with some truly RIPE dialogue!).

The film works best when focusing on Jesus; unfortunately, it veers off into distracting subplots about Barabbas and the zealots, and the decadence of Herod's court. These stories consume a LOT of screen time, and damage the overall impact of the film.

Yet rising above all this is Jeffrey Hunter's interpretation of the Savior. Easily the most audience-friendly of all the actors who have assailed the role, Hunter took a lot of flack for his 'matinee idol' good looks, and piercing blue eyes, but his kindness, his sincerity, and the complete believability with which he delivers Christ's words overcome any qualms about his appearance! The Sermon on the Mount is a film high point, and magnificent; the Crucifixion and Resurrection have the kind of power that can bring a lump to your throat, even after repeated viewings!

While 'King of Kings' lacks the big names and budget of 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', or the emotional core of 'Jesus of Nazareth' or 'The Last Temptation of Christ', in Jeffrey Hunter, the film presents possibly the most compassionate of all screen Messiahs, and makes this film a MUST for the holidays, and your collection!

Jesus Christ Never Existed.
'King of Kings' made in 1961 is a famous film some people have seen or at least heard about. Most people fail to realize all of that doesn't matter because Jesus Christ never existed!! Jesus Christ is a mythological figure the church has exploited for hundreds of years and now the film industry has for almost a hundred years. There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Even if he did exist, it would be highly unlikely he would have received that kind of punishment.
It is a shame that con artists like these filmmakers are using this mythological figure to make millions of dollars. People have to start swaying away from the manipulations of the church and the filmmaking industry and start looking at the hard facts. Jesus Christ and his crucifixion never happened.

The best one in its genre.
I'm positive that a lot of people have turned back their gazes to former versions of Jesus's life and death in view of the huge acceptance of Mel Gibson's recent film. Revisiting some of the classic titles is a good exercise in hindsight. How things have changed? To the worse, to be sure.

"King of Kings" is an excellent film, one of the best epics ever -alongside the also painfully underrated "The Fall of the Roman Empire"-. The film tells the story straightforwardly, mixing in it a little of historic and political speculation. It has a good rhythm, high visual artistry, admirable sets, genuine multitudes... Of course, Jesus is the wisest and most benevolent of men, and it is but right that he be also the most handsome of all: Jeffrey Hunter at his physical best and with bizarre -but culturally right- characterization.

Miklos Rosza's score is precisely one of its major assets. I think that he hit the target when it came to produce grandiloquent but available music, apt to bring up a sense of the religious or the military, not forgetting some passages of a sweet beauty, like that one with the Wise men in Bethelem.

The film treats Jesus as an all-out hero, on the terms set by his followers: he is a superman, compassionate, able of working miracles, godlike as God's son should be. He delivers his teachings unashamedly and boldly. We are spared ridiculous moments that could issue from clinging too close to the letter of the Gospels. Nicholas Ray is clever enough to offer tactfully the blind man's recovery of sight, the lame walking again, etc

Most of the cast is ideally suited, although I find Hurd Hartfield too strained and joyless as Pilate.

The battle scenes are amazing, and so are the initial images with Pompey breaking into the Sanctum of the Temple.

Whatever your actual feelings about Christianity and Jesus be, you can go back happily to a world of certainties and security ("suspension of disbelief") with a fine work of arte like "King of Kings", very enjoyable. After all, and in the worst of cases, you'll get back your childhood's hero in style.

And praise Samuel Bronston, the producer and the man behind half a dozen of the last and best epics from the sixties. He got the money and contributed much more than that. Gen. Franco, by the way, contributed the masses, since the film was shot in Spain and the Spanish Army was put at the team's disposal.

YOU FUNDAMENTALISTS MAKE ME SICK
I just got done watching my newly acquired dvd of KING OF KINGS.So I decided to go online to write a review.And like always I read other reviews as not to repeat what others have already said.To my shock and disgust I'm hit with one berating after another.READ THE NEXT SECTION LIKE A WHINEY FIRST GRADER: ("That didn't happen in the bible" "This didn't happen in the bible"I'm gonna tell!) That's what you fundamentally retarded people sound like.I can care less about SO CALLED SCRIPTURAL ACCURACIES.If that's so important to you watch your lame copy of JESUS W/Brian Deacon.Wow! badly portraying word for word what's in the bible. You're absolutely right! That is the way to go. Conveying a message and emotional connection are far more important to me.All 4 gospels total approximately 200 pages (give or take the size of the print).Hardly a dent in the life of a 33 year old man.I sure am glad you stopped the movie as not ruin your childrens' thinking. They'll make great document lawyers.I'm done with likes of you. NOW I WRITE TO THE TRUE CHRISTIANS,The ones that believe with their hearts, not a KING JAMES six gun.I bought this disc about a week ago.While (Jesus of Nazareth) is my favorite and (The Greatest Story Ever Told) is a close second,this movie has an untouchable magic of it's own.Sure they spent a little too much time on Barabbas,and Robert Ryan's portrayal of John the baptist is no better than a cold reading, as if he's seen the script for the first time.Or any thing else you want to nitpik about.But the score is wonderful and so many moments will force tears from your eyes,if you only relax yourself into movie.If you contemplate getting this DVD I strongly suggest that you do.The picture is remastered nicely and the sound is very fulfilling,bonus features;not much, total less than 10 minues.Even if you have a personal recording from TCM like I do. Get the disc.It offers you an even more panoramic view not shown on Turner Classic Movies. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Jane Fonda came into her own with this Oscar-winningperformance as an insecure high-class call girl who can't make it as a legitimate actress or model yet can't give upher addiction. She loves the control too much. But when she's stalked by a killer, she's forced to confront the darker aspects of her nature and profession. It's a complex and authentic performanceand Fonda plays it cool and smart. Typical of early '70s films, Klute peels away socialinhibition and hypocrisy with precision and candor. It's also typical of director Alan J. Pakula's intelligence and ability to work so well with actors. Donald Sutherland plays John Klute, the vulnerable detectivetrying to determine if his missing friend is the stalker and sexual deviant. This is the kind of moody, character-driven film so many of us miss today, even if the plot is pure hokum. --Bill Desowitz ... Read more

Reviews (23)

Klute should have been on the AFI list
Klute is one of my favorite films of all time.It ranks right up there with "The Parallax View" as Allan Pakula's best film.Donald Sutherland gives a superb performance as the low-key sensitive cop, Klute, and Jane Fonda is wonderful (as always).The film is brilliant in so many ways. It is very visually striking, perfectly acted, great musical score, I cannot say enough about this movie. It is a quintessential American film that along with so many others from the 70's: Deliverance, The Parallax View, The Conversation, Night Moves, and from the late 60's, Point Blank, was unjustly left of AFI's top 100 movies list.

klute begat blade runner
"Klute" is far above average for the era... evocative music is used with excellent editing to produce what is still a rarity today: a suspenseful, realistic move with characters an audience cares about. Alan Pakula's spare technique is juxtaposed with rich sets and costumes to set a creepy mood, combining beautifully to give the viewer a gradually increasing chill which culminates in a harrowing climax. Certainly one can see the influence "Klute" in such diverse films as "Blade Runner" (particularly in one scene where Bree rides an elevator to the top floor of a dress factory) and "The Blair Witch Project" which relied on similarly subtle hints to freak out the viewer). Add to the mix superb performances by Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland and you have yourself one hell of a film. And something to think about in the bargain.

A Second Rate Thriller
Klute is a movie that aspires to the cult status of Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation but where The Conversation is compelling, Klute is vapid. It simply lacks inventiveness and originality.

Klute is a second-rate thriller. The plot eventually takes on predictability and is short on logic and terror. Klute is one of those movies that looks great but has no real substance. You don't care about the characters.

Klute does not offer any surprises whatsoever and the ending became quite predictable before it was half over. What good is a mystery if everything is pretty obvious and you can guess everything that's about to take place? This attempt at a psychological thriller is mindless. The plot is thin. Guy kills for no apparent reason.

In sum, Klute is a movie to avoid.

Excellent movie - amazing acting. But...
Jane Fonda was pretty unpopular when she did this movie. So she had alot against her to win and Oscar. But her amazing acting shon through and she won. Donald Sutherland was good and contributes to the atmosphere of the movie.

But..
Here's the problem. Warner Brothers have released this film on DVD which means it comes in an annoying card case instead of the usual plastic durable DVD boxes you'd get else where. They dont last as long, and it's harder to put in to a dvd collection when it has totally different dimensions to the rest.
It's quite a job to cut and place in a normal box. For the sake of 25 cence in cost saving, they've doing themselves a diservice. The security tags are hard to get off due to the sticky tag being stuck to [you guessed it] card.

You won't believe it's 30 years old.
This could be a film -about- the late sixties, done today. It's just superb. It holds up so well ... it makes you struggle with the problem of why most other older films become so dated ... Great DVD image, by the way. Very different than watching it on TV. ... Read more

Reviews (66)

An intelligent, inspiring life of Christ.
"King of Kings" was my favorite religious motion picture when growing up, and I believe it still is. When MGM first released it in 1961, movie critics irreverently dubbed it "I Was a Teenage Jesus", since the role of Christ was given to teen idol Jeffrey Hunter. In hindsight, it was an unfair appraisal. Unlike other actors who have played Jesus in the more sublime, "stained-glass" manner that appears to be the norm, Hunter's portrayal showed a very human, energetic Messiah whose divinity still could not be denied. Interestingly enough, "King of Kings" was directed by Nicholas Ray, who six years earlier had directed James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause". This time around, our "Rebel" has a well-defined Cause which places Him at odds with the religious and civil authorities of His day. The film's international supporting cast consists mainly of lesser-known character actors whose performances are mostly able. The great actor/filmmaker Orson Welles gives an uncredited performance as the film's narrator; curiously, the narration was written by science fiction author Ray Bradbury, who is also uncredited. The film's stirring music was composed by Miklos Rozsa, who was no stranger to religious epics (the soundtracks to "Quo Vadis?" and "Ben-Hur" stand out among his other works). Beautifully filmed in Spain, "King of Kings" is an intelligent and reverent profile of He who has been the Way, the Truth, and the Life to hundreds of millions for almost 2000 years. END

Hunter as Jesus Shines!
'King of Kings' features Jeffrey Hunter's finest performance, as a young, dynamic Jesus of Nazareth, and his intrerpretation, open and earnest, is the best part of a movie both uneven and flawed.

Produced by many of the people responsible for 'Ben Hur', the film utilizes some of the same sets, actors (Frank Thring appears in major roles in both films), and composer (Miklos Rozsa, whose score for 'King of Kings' was one of his finest). The cast was fleshed out by respected actors (Robert Ryan is too old but charismatic as John the Baptist, Siobhan McKenna is a glowing Mary, Brigid Bazlen, a deliciously wicked and oversexed Salome, Harry Guardino, an 'over-the-top' Barabbas, a VERY young Rip Torn scores as Judas). While the cast didn't have the 'star power' of 'Ben Hur', or many other Christian epics, the actors, by and large, perform credibly in their roles, particularly Hurd Hatfield and Viveca Lindfors, as Pilate and his wife, Claudia, and Ron Randell as Tribune Lucius.

The film was a MUCH less expensive project than 'Ben Hur'; the budget restraints show most glaringly in recreating Jesus' ministry (most of Christ's miracles are only referred to, not shown), and extras casting (Spanish townspeople, overdubbed with some truly RIPE dialogue!).

The film works best when focusing on Jesus; unfortunately, it veers off into distracting subplots about Barabbas and the zealots, and the decadence of Herod's court. These stories consume a LOT of screen time, and damage the overall impact of the film.

Yet rising above all this is Jeffrey Hunter's interpretation of the Savior. Easily the most audience-friendly of all the actors who have assailed the role, Hunter took a lot of flack for his 'matinee idol' good looks, and piercing blue eyes, but his kindness, his sincerity, and the complete believability with which he delivers Christ's words overcome any qualms about his appearance! The Sermon on the Mount is a film high point, and magnificent; the Crucifixion and Resurrection have the kind of power that can bring a lump to your throat, even after repeated viewings!

While 'King of Kings' lacks the big names and budget of 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', or the emotional core of 'Jesus of Nazareth' or 'The Last Temptation of Christ', in Jeffrey Hunter, the film presents possibly the most compassionate of all screen Messiahs, and makes this film a MUST for the holidays, and your collection!

Jesus Christ Never Existed.
'King of Kings' made in 1961 is a famous film some people have seen or at least heard about. Most people fail to realize all of that doesn't matter because Jesus Christ never existed!! Jesus Christ is a mythological figure the church has exploited for hundreds of years and now the film industry has for almost a hundred years. There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Even if he did exist, it would be highly unlikely he would have received that kind of punishment.
It is a shame that con artists like these filmmakers are using this mythological figure to make millions of dollars. People have to start swaying away from the manipulations of the church and the filmmaking industry and start looking at the hard facts. Jesus Christ and his crucifixion never happened.

The best one in its genre.
I'm positive that a lot of people have turned back their gazes to former versions of Jesus's life and death in view of the huge acceptance of Mel Gibson's recent film. Revisiting some of the classic titles is a good exercise in hindsight. How things have changed? To the worse, to be sure.

"King of Kings" is an excellent film, one of the best epics ever -alongside the also painfully underrated "The Fall of the Roman Empire"-. The film tells the story straightforwardly, mixing in it a little of historic and political speculation. It has a good rhythm, high visual artistry, admirable sets, genuine multitudes... Of course, Jesus is the wisest and most benevolent of men, and it is but right that he be also the most handsome of all: Jeffrey Hunter at his physical best and with bizarre -but culturally right- characterization.

Miklos Rosza's score is precisely one of its major assets. I think that he hit the target when it came to produce grandiloquent but available music, apt to bring up a sense of the religious or the military, not forgetting some passages of a sweet beauty, like that one with the Wise men in Bethelem.

The film treats Jesus as an all-out hero, on the terms set by his followers: he is a superman, compassionate, able of working miracles, godlike as God's son should be. He delivers his teachings unashamedly and boldly. We are spared ridiculous moments that could issue from clinging too close to the letter of the Gospels. Nicholas Ray is clever enough to offer tactfully the blind man's recovery of sight, the lame walking again, etc

Most of the cast is ideally suited, although I find Hurd Hartfield too strained and joyless as Pilate.

The battle scenes are amazing, and so are the initial images with Pompey breaking into the Sanctum of the Temple.

Whatever your actual feelings about Christianity and Jesus be, you can go back happily to a world of certainties and security ("suspension of disbelief") with a fine work of arte like "King of Kings", very enjoyable. After all, and in the worst of cases, you'll get back your childhood's hero in style.

And praise Samuel Bronston, the producer and the man behind half a dozen of the last and best epics from the sixties. He got the money and contributed much more than that. Gen. Franco, by the way, contributed the masses, since the film was shot in Spain and the Spanish Army was put at the team's disposal.

YOU FUNDAMENTALISTS MAKE ME SICK
I just got done watching my newly acquired dvd of KING OF KINGS.So I decided to go online to write a review.And like always I read other reviews as not to repeat what others have already said.To my shock and disgust I'm hit with one berating after another.READ THE NEXT SECTION LIKE A WHINEY FIRST GRADER: ("That didn't happen in the bible" "This didn't happen in the bible"I'm gonna tell!) That's what you fundamentally retarded people sound like.I can care less about SO CALLED SCRIPTURAL ACCURACIES.If that's so important to you watch your lame copy of JESUS W/Brian Deacon.Wow! badly portraying word for word what's in the bible. You're absolutely right! That is the way to go. Conveying a message and emotional connection are far more important to me.All 4 gospels total approximately 200 pages (give or take the size of the print).Hardly a dent in the life of a 33 year old man.I sure am glad you stopped the movie as not ruin your childrens' thinking. They'll make great document lawyers.I'm done with likes of you. NOW I WRITE TO THE TRUE CHRISTIANS,The ones that believe with their hearts, not a KING JAMES six gun.I bought this disc about a week ago.While (Jesus of Nazareth) is my favorite and (The Greatest Story Ever Told) is a close second,this movie has an untouchable magic of it's own.Sure they spent a little too much time on Barabbas,and Robert Ryan's portrayal of John the baptist is no better than a cold reading, as if he's seen the script for the first time.Or any thing else you want to nitpik about.But the score is wonderful and so many moments will force tears from your eyes,if you only relax yourself into movie.If you contemplate getting this DVD I strongly suggest that you do.The picture is remastered nicely and the sound is very fulfilling,bonus features;not much, total less than 10 minues.Even if you have a personal recording from TCM like I do. Get the disc.It offers you an even more panoramic view not shown on Turner Classic Movies. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Same Old Hathaway Recipe
Henry Hathaway found a recipe for making western movies and did not alter one lousy bit. True Grit, Five Card Stud, Shootout - the bad guys from each film in order - Dennis Hopper, Roddy McDowall, and Robert Lyons - they all wear the same outfit. What did they do - pass them down from one film to the other? Also, it appears that True Grit and Shootout have some of the same location scenes shot from the same angle. One more thing - take a close look at the scene at the train depot and see if you cannot find a jet stream. I recommend Gregory Peck's, The Stalking Moon, over Shootout. Stalking Moon has a little more bite and grit and makes no reference to "punks".

PURE CAMP!
"I'm so dumb. I shoulda knowed, a man's just gonna do what a man's gonna do.".

So unbelievably bad it must be destined to reach cult status one day if the general public ever finds out about this flick. I can't believe Henry Hathaway and Hal Wallis put their stamp of approval on this thing. Great story becomes a victim of the creeping sensitivity of the 60's/70's in the silly tradition of geriatric sentimentality found in True Grit, Rooster Cogburn, and that out of place Raindrops scene in Butch Cassidy, but without a decent script. I defy anyone to name a movie with more ill conceived, outright stupid but hysterically funny dialogue and you'll be rolling on the floor as Gregory Peck, one of Hollywood's most revered actors introduces the word "punk" into the genre....4 TIMES! Dawn Lyn warms up for her role in Walking Tall, and brings the musical score from this turkey with her. The ironic thing is, if you don't like westerns you will probably love this thing; and if you are a fan of westerns you will laugh your [rear] off. Unintentionally very funny.

(Spoiler alert) This is the first time I can ever remember seeing that sideways gansta' pistol pointing and prophetically the token Chicano outlaw gets taken out by this new and unexplainable technique. But it's guaranteed to make you laugh.

If you want to see teacups, apples, and whiskey glasses shot of'n of people's heads then you've come to the right place. Would really make a good Mystery Science project. Laugh factor ****, Quality rating **, but only for making me laugh. BTW, DVD is quite good with 5 stars for both picture quality and sound, just too bad about the script.

some of the best western acting and good story line
a very good western with a good cast and and story line. Peck does a fine job as always as a man on a vengence crusade that is interupted when a little girl is placed in his care. As the story progresses he starts to love this little girl and realize what life is really about and that he has all the treasure that he'll ever want and someone is trying to take it all away. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Jane Fonda came into her own with this Oscar-winning performance as an insecure high-class call girl who can't make it as a legitimate actress or model yet can't give up her addiction. She loves the control too much. But when she's stalked by a killer, she's forced to confront the darker aspects of her nature and profession. It's a complex and authentic performance and Fonda plays it cool and smart. Typical of early '70s films, Klute peels away social inhibitionand hypocrisy with precision and candor. It's also typical of director Alan J. Pakula's intelligence and ability to work so well with actors. Donald Sutherland plays John Klute, the vulnerable detective trying to determine if his missing friend is the stalker and sexual deviant. This is the kind of moody, character-driven film so many of us miss today, even if the plot is pure hokum. --Bill Desowitz ... Read more

Reviews (23)

Klute should have been on the AFI list
Klute is one of my favorite films of all time.It ranks right up there with "The Parallax View" as Allan Pakula's best film.Donald Sutherland gives a superb performance as the low-key sensitive cop, Klute, and Jane Fonda is wonderful (as always).The film is brilliant in so many ways. It is very visually striking, perfectly acted, great musical score, I cannot say enough about this movie. It is a quintessential American film that along with so many others from the 70's: Deliverance, The Parallax View, The Conversation, Night Moves, and from the late 60's, Point Blank, was unjustly left of AFI's top 100 movies list.

klute begat blade runner
"Klute" is far above average for the era... evocative music is used with excellent editing to produce what is still a rarity today: a suspenseful, realistic move with characters an audience cares about. Alan Pakula's spare technique is juxtaposed with rich sets and costumes to set a creepy mood, combining beautifully to give the viewer a gradually increasing chill which culminates in a harrowing climax. Certainly one can see the influence "Klute" in such diverse films as "Blade Runner" (particularly in one scene where Bree rides an elevator to the top floor of a dress factory) and "The Blair Witch Project" which relied on similarly subtle hints to freak out the viewer). Add to the mix superb performances by Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland and you have yourself one hell of a film. And something to think about in the bargain.

A Second Rate Thriller
Klute is a movie that aspires to the cult status of Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation but where The Conversation is compelling, Klute is vapid. It simply lacks inventiveness and originality.

Klute is a second-rate thriller. The plot eventually takes on predictability and is short on logic and terror. Klute is one of those movies that looks great but has no real substance. You don't care about the characters.

Klute does not offer any surprises whatsoever and the ending became quite predictable before it was half over. What good is a mystery if everything is pretty obvious and you can guess everything that's about to take place? This attempt at a psychological thriller is mindless. The plot is thin. Guy kills for no apparent reason.

In sum, Klute is a movie to avoid.

Excellent movie - amazing acting. But...
Jane Fonda was pretty unpopular when she did this movie. So she had alot against her to win and Oscar. But her amazing acting shon through and she won. Donald Sutherland was good and contributes to the atmosphere of the movie.

But..
Here's the problem. Warner Brothers have released this film on DVD which means it comes in an annoying card case instead of the usual plastic durable DVD boxes you'd get else where. They dont last as long, and it's harder to put in to a dvd collection when it has totally different dimensions to the rest.
It's quite a job to cut and place in a normal box. For the sake of 25 cence in cost saving, they've doing themselves a diservice. The security tags are hard to get off due to the sticky tag being stuck to [you guessed it] card.

You won't believe it's 30 years old.
This could be a film -about- the late sixties, done today. It's just superb. It holds up so well ... it makes you struggle with the problem of why most other older films become so dated ... Great DVD image, by the way. Very different than watching it on TV. ... Read more

Reviews (66)

An intelligent, inspiring life of Christ.
"King of Kings" was my favorite religious motion picture when growing up, and I believe it still is. When MGM first released it in 1961, movie critics irreverently dubbed it "I Was a Teenage Jesus", since the role of Christ was given to teen idol Jeffrey Hunter. In hindsight, it was an unfair appraisal. Unlike other actors who have played Jesus in the more sublime, "stained-glass" manner that appears to be the norm, Hunter's portrayal showed a very human, energetic Messiah whose divinity still could not be denied. Interestingly enough, "King of Kings" was directed by Nicholas Ray, who six years earlier had directed James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause". This time around, our "Rebel" has a well-defined Cause which places Him at odds with the religious and civil authorities of His day. The film's international supporting cast consists mainly of lesser-known character actors whose performances are mostly able. The great actor/filmmaker Orson Welles gives an uncredited performance as the film's narrator; curiously, the narration was written by science fiction author Ray Bradbury, who is also uncredited. The film's stirring music was composed by Miklos Rozsa, who was no stranger to religious epics (the soundtracks to "Quo Vadis?" and "Ben-Hur" stand out among his other works). Beautifully filmed in Spain, "King of Kings" is an intelligent and reverent profile of He who has been the Way, the Truth, and the Life to hundreds of millions for almost 2000 years. END

Hunter as Jesus Shines!
'King of Kings' features Jeffrey Hunter's finest performance, as a young, dynamic Jesus of Nazareth, and his intrerpretation, open and earnest, is the best part of a movie both uneven and flawed.

Produced by many of the people responsible for 'Ben Hur', the film utilizes some of the same sets, actors (Frank Thring appears in major roles in both films), and composer (Miklos Rozsa, whose score for 'King of Kings' was one of his finest). The cast was fleshed out by respected actors (Robert Ryan is too old but charismatic as John the Baptist, Siobhan McKenna is a glowing Mary, Brigid Bazlen, a deliciously wicked and oversexed Salome, Harry Guardino, an 'over-the-top' Barabbas, a VERY young Rip Torn scores as Judas). While the cast didn't have the 'star power' of 'Ben Hur', or many other Christian epics, the actors, by and large, perform credibly in their roles, particularly Hurd Hatfield and Viveca Lindfors, as Pilate and his wife, Claudia, and Ron Randell as Tribune Lucius.

The film was a MUCH less expensive project than 'Ben Hur'; the budget restraints show most glaringly in recreating Jesus' ministry (most of Christ's miracles are only referred to, not shown), and extras casting (Spanish townspeople, overdubbed with some truly RIPE dialogue!).

The film works best when focusing on Jesus; unfortunately, it veers off into distracting subplots about Barabbas and the zealots, and the decadence of Herod's court. These stories consume a LOT of screen time, and damage the overall impact of the film.

Yet rising above all this is Jeffrey Hunter's interpretation of the Savior. Easily the most audience-friendly of all the actors who have assailed the role, Hunter took a lot of flack for his 'matinee idol' good looks, and piercing blue eyes, but his kindness, his sincerity, and the complete believability with which he delivers Christ's words overcome any qualms about his appearance! The Sermon on the Mount is a film high point, and magnificent; the Crucifixion and Resurrection have the kind of power that can bring a lump to your throat, even after repeated viewings!

While 'King of Kings' lacks the big names and budget of 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', or the emotional core of 'Jesus of Nazareth' or 'The Last Temptation of Christ', in Jeffrey Hunter, the film presents possibly the most compassionate of all screen Messiahs, and makes this film a MUST for the holidays, and your collection!

Jesus Christ Never Existed.
'King of Kings' made in 1961 is a famous film some people have seen or at least heard about. Most people fail to realize all of that doesn't matter because Jesus Christ never existed!! Jesus Christ is a mythological figure the church has exploited for hundreds of years and now the film industry has for almost a hundred years. There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Even if he did exist, it would be highly unlikely he would have received that kind of punishment.
It is a shame that con artists like these filmmakers are using this mythological figure to make millions of dollars. People have to start swaying away from the manipulations of the church and the filmmaking industry and start looking at the hard facts. Jesus Christ and his crucifixion never happened.

The best one in its genre.
I'm positive that a lot of people have turned back their gazes to former versions of Jesus's life and death in view of the huge acceptance of Mel Gibson's recent film. Revisiting some of the classic titles is a good exercise in hindsight. How things have changed? To the worse, to be sure.

"King of Kings" is an excellent film, one of the best epics ever -alongside the also painfully underrated "The Fall of the Roman Empire"-. The film tells the story straightforwardly, mixing in it a little of historic and political speculation. It has a good rhythm, high visual artistry, admirable sets, genuine multitudes... Of course, Jesus is the wisest and most benevolent of men, and it is but right that he be also the most handsome of all: Jeffrey Hunter at his physical best and with bizarre -but culturally right- characterization.

Miklos Rosza's score is precisely one of its major assets. I think that he hit the target when it came to produce grandiloquent but available music, apt to bring up a sense of the religious or the military, not forgetting some passages of a sweet beauty, like that one with the Wise men in Bethelem.

The film treats Jesus as an all-out hero, on the terms set by his followers: he is a superman, compassionate, able of working miracles, godlike as God's son should be. He delivers his teachings unashamedly and boldly. We are spared ridiculous moments that could issue from clinging too close to the letter of the Gospels. Nicholas Ray is clever enough to offer tactfully the blind man's recovery of sight, the lame walking again, etc

Most of the cast is ideally suited, although I find Hurd Hartfield too strained and joyless as Pilate.

The battle scenes are amazing, and so are the initial images with Pompey breaking into the Sanctum of the Temple.

Whatever your actual feelings about Christianity and Jesus be, you can go back happily to a world of certainties and security ("suspension of disbelief") with a fine work of arte like "King of Kings", very enjoyable. After all, and in the worst of cases, you'll get back your childhood's hero in style.

And praise Samuel Bronston, the producer and the man behind half a dozen of the last and best epics from the sixties. He got the money and contributed much more than that. Gen. Franco, by the way, contributed the masses, since the film was shot in Spain and the Spanish Army was put at the team's disposal.

YOU FUNDAMENTALISTS MAKE ME SICK
I just got done watching my newly acquired dvd of KING OF KINGS.So I decided to go online to write a review.And like always I read other reviews as not to repeat what others have already said.To my shock and disgust I'm hit with one berating after another.READ THE NEXT SECTION LIKE A WHINEY FIRST GRADER: ("That didn't happen in the bible" "This didn't happen in the bible"I'm gonna tell!) That's what you fundamentally retarded people sound like.I can care less about SO CALLED SCRIPTURAL ACCURACIES.If that's so important to you watch your lame copy of JESUS W/Brian Deacon.Wow! badly portraying word for word what's in the bible. You're absolutely right! That is the way to go. Conveying a message and emotional connection are far more important to me.All 4 gospels total approximately 200 pages (give or take the size of the print).Hardly a dent in the life of a 33 year old man.I sure am glad you stopped the movie as not ruin your childrens' thinking. They'll make great document lawyers.I'm done with likes of you. NOW I WRITE TO THE TRUE CHRISTIANS,The ones that believe with their hearts, not a KING JAMES six gun.I bought this disc about a week ago.While (Jesus of Nazareth) is my favorite and (The Greatest Story Ever Told) is a close second,this movie has an untouchable magic of it's own.Sure they spent a little too much time on Barabbas,and Robert Ryan's portrayal of John the baptist is no better than a cold reading, as if he's seen the script for the first time.Or any thing else you want to nitpik about.But the score is wonderful and so many moments will force tears from your eyes,if you only relax yourself into movie.If you contemplate getting this DVD I strongly suggest that you do.The picture is remastered nicely and the sound is very fulfilling,bonus features;not much, total less than 10 minues.Even if you have a personal recording from TCM like I do. Get the disc.It offers you an even more panoramic view not shown on Turner Classic Movies. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Excellent Movie
Ray Milland proves again what an excellent and diverse actor he was in THE THIEF, one of the most interesting and unique movies it has been my pleasure to watch. The fact that there was no dialog seemed to dissapear as I became absorbed in the story. I think it was excellent.

Unspeakably Brilliant
"The Thief," a moody and atmospheric noir masterpiece, is one of the most thoroughly engrossing espionage movies I have ever seen. The plot is intense and thrilling, the black and white cinematography visually stunning, the acting superb. The story revolves around a nuclear physicist (Ray Milland) who is also a spy. Torn by guilt and doubt and sinking deeper and deeper into dispair as FBI agents close in on him, he is forced into making a terrifying choice. All without a single word of dialogue.

The movie succeeds mainly because of the brilliant acting ability of Ray Milland. His performance, which owes much of its flavour to his Oscar winning role in "The Lost Weekend," is quite probably his best ever. Dialogue would have destroyed this movie because its atmosphere thrives on the solitude and loneliness of spies and their world.

I have read many reviews that mention that "The Thief" leaves unclear the political convictions of the protagonist as well as the name of the country for which he actually works. Why the emphasis on this I do not understand since the movie intentionally leaves so many things unclear (i.e.: Ray Milland is the only character whose name we learn). I feel that this works decidedly to the movies' advantage. Isn't that the very nature of espionage?

Successful experiment/failed Cold War movie
The Thief was an experiment to see if a film could be made without any spoken dialogue. It does succeed yet it does not encourage other similar attempts. It is a dead end that limits film's potential. That said, THE THIEF is a director's and actor's glory. For those are the two factors that would make or break a film like this. Both come through with ease. Ray Milland, who is to be commended for attempting such a project, does a magnificent job. One is hard pressed to think of a film that is so literally carried by a single actor. His performance, made up of only expressions and very revealing eyes, is superb. This film is a Milland fans dream. Where the film flounders is in its attempt to be a Cold War espionage film. Because of the nature of espionage and the nature of the film, there is really no opportunity is explain just who THE THIEF is working for. Spies don't carry little pictures of Stalin in their wallets. It would be foolish. So one could assume that he is working for Moscow yet one can very easily decide that he is working for Gamal Nasser. The film is obscure on this point. The direction is very very good with many bravura sequences. The business on the Empire State building being of special note. It is plain that Hitchcock must have seen this film and was heavily influenced by it especially NORTH BY NORTHWEST and perhaps THE WRONG MAN. Yet another "thief".

Interesting experiment/failed cold war film
The Thief contains no spoken dialogue. It was an interesting experiment that really is a dead end. One cannot imagine or desire a whole series of films like this but, as a stand alone, the film is good. It fails as a "cold war" film since the viewer cannot really tell who the "thief" actually is working for. Could be Moscow but could easily be Egypt. That said. The Thief is very watchable. The direction is excellent. The performances are all first rate, especially Ray Milland. The film really hinges on Milland's silent acting skills and he truly carries the film. This is a must have for any Milland fan. One is hard pressed to think of a film that so completely belongs to a single actor yet here it is. Milland is commended for taking a chance on such an unorthodox film. He succeeds. The film succeeds.

Nice movie
That's a nice movie. I mean it ... Read more

Reviews (3)

STCOK SHOTS ALONG THE MOHAWK
As Ron Wood mentionned in it's review, most action sequences in MOHAWK comme from John Ford's DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK. This 1939 film provided stock shots for many other movies. In 1944, one shot of Mohawk warriors setting Fonda's place afire in DRUMS was used in BUFFALO BILL. Battle scenes around the fort were then used in MOHAWK. Almost the same scenes were used again in the pilot episode of the DANIEL BOONE TV series starring Fess Parker in the mid-60s.

As far as stock shots are concerned, BUFFALO BILL seems to be the absolute winner, at least in the western genre. Stock shots of the battle scene (War Bonnet Creek) were used by Fox in numerous productions. PONY SOLDIER with Tyrone Power (begining of the movie). SIEGE AT FEATHER RIVER (end of the movie, which was produced by Panoramic which provided FOX with B pictures). THE TIME TUNNEL TV series (Episode : Little Big Horn) also used the battle to pass as Custer's famous last stand.
Another depiction of that battle, from THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON starring Errol Flynn, was used in BUGLES IN THE AFTERNOON starring Ray Milland. Though THEY DIED was black and white, and BUGLES Technicolor, the stock shot did fit because it was being watch through binoculars by Ray Milland and modified from black and white to sepia.

If anyone knows of other stock shots in westerns, I'd be glad to read about that.

Mohawk
This is a rather interesting movie in that it uses a lot of distant scenic and action shots from John Ford's Drums Along The Mohawk. This is most noticeable, because all of a sudden while viewing the film, the production values are suddenly increased and the cinematography becomes almost ravishing instead of run of the mill that the "new" portions of the film just can't match.
As an aside, I remember seeing Drums Along The Mohawk twice when I was a kid in the 1940s in a small town where I grew up and it was in black and white; only when I saw it on VHS in the 1980s did I see the true Technicolor format. And then I was knocked out again when I saw portions of it appear in Mohawk, a film I missed at the theatres and only caught on DVD about a year ago.

Does anyone know of any other films that utilized parts of older films as part of their format to save on production costs? I'd like to hear from anyone on this. I know this happens, especially in World War II films with documentary battle footage, but haven't noticed the use of regular production footage in newer movies, unless they referred to the earlier film as a link in a series.

Early American artist finds romance trying to keep peace.
Scott Brady and Rita Gam are not especially believable as a colonial era artist and his native American love interest, but the unusual time period, and energy of the production make "Mowhawk" fun. Evil white men try to incite the Indians to war, while the high-integrity artist works to maintain peace as he does portraits of various characters. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

STCOK SHOTS ALONG THE MOHAWK
As Ron Wood mentionned in it's review, most action sequences in MOHAWK comme from John Ford's DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK. This 1939 film provided stock shots for many other movies. In 1944, one shot of Mohawk warriors setting Fonda's place afire in DRUMS was used in BUFFALO BILL. Battle scenes around the fort were then used in MOHAWK. Almost the same scenes were used again in the pilot episode of the DANIEL BOONE TV series starring Fess Parker in the mid-60s.

As far as stock shots are concerned, BUFFALO BILL seems to be the absolute winner, at least in the western genre. Stock shots of the battle scene (War Bonnet Creek) were used by Fox in numerous productions. PONY SOLDIER with Tyrone Power (begining of the movie). SIEGE AT FEATHER RIVER (end of the movie, which was produced by Panoramic which provided FOX with B pictures). THE TIME TUNNEL TV series (Episode : Little Big Horn) also used the battle to pass as Custer's famous last stand.
Another depiction of that battle, from THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON starring Errol Flynn, was used in BUGLES IN THE AFTERNOON starring Ray Milland. Though THEY DIED was black and white, and BUGLES Technicolor, the stock shot did fit because it was being watch through binoculars by Ray Milland and modified from black and white to sepia.

If anyone knows of other stock shots in westerns, I'd be glad to read about that.

Mohawk
This is a rather interesting movie in that it uses a lot of distant scenic and action shots from John Ford's Drums Along The Mohawk. This is most noticeable, because all of a sudden while viewing the film, the production values are suddenly increased and the cinematography becomes almost ravishing instead of run of the mill that the "new" portions of the film just can't match.
As an aside, I remember seeing Drums Along The Mohawk twice when I was a kid in the 1940s in a small town where I grew up and it was in black and white; only when I saw it on VHS in the 1980s did I see the true Technicolor format. And then I was knocked out again when I saw portions of it appear in Mohawk, a film I missed at the theatres and only caught on DVD about a year ago.

Does anyone know of any other films that utilized parts of older films as part of their format to save on production costs? I'd like to hear from anyone on this. I know this happens, especially in World War II films with documentary battle footage, but haven't noticed the use of regular production footage in newer movies, unless they referred to the earlier film as a link in a series.

Early American artist finds romance trying to keep peace.
Scott Brady and Rita Gam are not especially believable as a colonial era artist and his native American love interest, but the unusual time period, and energy of the production make "Mowhawk" fun. Evil white men try to incite the Indians to war, while the high-integrity artist works to maintain peace as he does portraits of various characters. ... Read more

Reviews (66)

An intelligent, inspiring life of Christ.
"King of Kings" was my favorite religious motion picture when growing up, and I believe it still is. When MGM first released it in 1961, movie critics irreverently dubbed it "I Was a Teenage Jesus", since the role of Christ was given to teen idol Jeffrey Hunter. In hindsight, it was an unfair appraisal. Unlike other actors who have played Jesus in the more sublime, "stained-glass" manner that appears to be the norm, Hunter's portrayal showed a very human, energetic Messiah whose divinity still could not be denied. Interestingly enough, "King of Kings" was directed by Nicholas Ray, who six years earlier had directed James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause". This time around, our "Rebel" has a well-defined Cause which places Him at odds with the religious and civil authorities of His day. The film's international supporting cast consists mainly of lesser-known character actors whose performances are mostly able. The great actor/filmmaker Orson Welles gives an uncredited performance as the film's narrator; curiously, the narration was written by science fiction author Ray Bradbury, who is also uncredited. The film's stirring music was composed by Miklos Rozsa, who was no stranger to religious epics (the soundtracks to "Quo Vadis?" and "Ben-Hur" stand out among his other works). Beautifully filmed in Spain, "King of Kings" is an intelligent and reverent profile of He who has been the Way, the Truth, and the Life to hundreds of millions for almost 2000 years. END

Hunter as Jesus Shines!
'King of Kings' features Jeffrey Hunter's finest performance, as a young, dynamic Jesus of Nazareth, and his intrerpretation, open and earnest, is the best part of a movie both uneven and flawed.

Produced by many of the people responsible for 'Ben Hur', the film utilizes some of the same sets, actors (Frank Thring appears in major roles in both films), and composer (Miklos Rozsa, whose score for 'King of Kings' was one of his finest). The cast was fleshed out by respected actors (Robert Ryan is too old but charismatic as John the Baptist, Siobhan McKenna is a glowing Mary, Brigid Bazlen, a deliciously wicked and oversexed Salome, Harry Guardino, an 'over-the-top' Barabbas, a VERY young Rip Torn scores as Judas). While the cast didn't have the 'star power' of 'Ben Hur', or many other Christian epics, the actors, by and large, perform credibly in their roles, particularly Hurd Hatfield and Viveca Lindfors, as Pilate and his wife, Claudia, and Ron Randell as Tribune Lucius.

The film was a MUCH less expensive project than 'Ben Hur'; the budget restraints show most glaringly in recreating Jesus' ministry (most of Christ's miracles are only referred to, not shown), and extras casting (Spanish townspeople, overdubbed with some truly RIPE dialogue!).

The film works best when focusing on Jesus; unfortunately, it veers off into distracting subplots about Barabbas and the zealots, and the decadence of Herod's court. These stories consume a LOT of screen time, and damage the overall impact of the film.

Yet rising above all this is Jeffrey Hunter's interpretation of the Savior. Easily the most audience-friendly of all the actors who have assailed the role, Hunter took a lot of flack for his 'matinee idol' good looks, and piercing blue eyes, but his kindness, his sincerity, and the complete believability with which he delivers Christ's words overcome any qualms about his appearance! The Sermon on the Mount is a film high point, and magnificent; the Crucifixion and Resurrection have the kind of power that can bring a lump to your throat, even after repeated viewings!

While 'King of Kings' lacks the big names and budget of 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', or the emotional core of 'Jesus of Nazareth' or 'The Last Temptation of Christ', in Jeffrey Hunter, the film presents possibly the most compassionate of all screen Messiahs, and makes this film a MUST for the holidays, and your collection!

Jesus Christ Never Existed.
'King of Kings' made in 1961 is a famous film some people have seen or at least heard about. Most people fail to realize all of that doesn't matter because Jesus Christ never existed!! Jesus Christ is a mythological figure the church has exploited for hundreds of years and now the film industry has for almost a hundred years. There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Even if he did exist, it would be highly unlikely he would have received that kind of punishment.
It is a shame that con artists like these filmmakers are using this mythological figure to make millions of dollars. People have to start swaying away from the manipulations of the church and the filmmaking industry and start looking at the hard facts. Jesus Christ and his crucifixion never happened.

The best one in its genre.
I'm positive that a lot of people have turned back their gazes to former versions of Jesus's life and death in view of the huge acceptance of Mel Gibson's recent film. Revisiting some of the classic titles is a good exercise in hindsight. How things have changed? To the worse, to be sure.

"King of Kings" is an excellent film, one of the best epics ever -alongside the also painfully underrated "The Fall of the Roman Empire"-. The film tells the story straightforwardly, mixing in it a little of historic and political speculation. It has a good rhythm, high visual artistry, admirable sets, genuine multitudes... Of course, Jesus is the wisest and most benevolent of men, and it is but right that he be also the most handsome of all: Jeffrey Hunter at his physical best and with bizarre -but culturally right- characterization.

Miklos Rosza's score is precisely one of its major assets. I think that he hit the target when it came to produce grandiloquent but available music, apt to bring up a sense of the religious or the military, not forgetting some passages of a sweet beauty, like that one with the Wise men in Bethelem.

The film treats Jesus as an all-out hero, on the terms set by his followers: he is a superman, compassionate, able of working miracles, godlike as God's son should be. He delivers his teachings unashamedly and boldly. We are spared ridiculous moments that could issue from clinging too close to the letter of the Gospels. Nicholas Ray is clever enough to offer tactfully the blind man's recovery of sight, the lame walking again, etc

Most of the cast is ideally suited, although I find Hurd Hartfield too strained and joyless as Pilate.

The battle scenes are amazing, and so are the initial images with Pompey breaking into the Sanctum of the Temple.

Whatever your actual feelings about Christianity and Jesus be, you can go back happily to a world of certainties and security ("suspension of disbelief") with a fine work of arte like "King of Kings", very enjoyable. After all, and in the worst of cases, you'll get back your childhood's hero in style.

And praise Samuel Bronston, the producer and the man behind half a dozen of the last and best epics from the sixties. He got the money and contributed much more than that. Gen. Franco, by the way, contributed the masses, since the film was shot in Spain and the Spanish Army was put at the team's disposal.

YOU FUNDAMENTALISTS MAKE ME SICK
I just got done watching my newly acquired dvd of KING OF KINGS.So I decided to go online to write a review.And like always I read other reviews as not to repeat what others have already said.To my shock and disgust I'm hit with one berating after another.READ THE NEXT SECTION LIKE A WHINEY FIRST GRADER: ("That didn't happen in the bible" "This didn't happen in the bible"I'm gonna tell!) That's what you fundamentally retarded people sound like.I can care less about SO CALLED SCRIPTURAL ACCURACIES.If that's so important to you watch your lame copy of JESUS W/Brian Deacon.Wow! badly portraying word for word what's in the bible. You're absolutely right! That is the way to go. Conveying a message and emotional connection are far more important to me.All 4 gospels total approximately 200 pages (give or take the size of the print).Hardly a dent in the life of a 33 year old man.I sure am glad you stopped the movie as not ruin your childrens' thinking. They'll make great document lawyers.I'm done with likes of you. NOW I WRITE TO THE TRUE CHRISTIANS,The ones that believe with their hearts, not a KING JAMES six gun.I bought this disc about a week ago.While (Jesus of Nazareth) is my favorite and (The Greatest Story Ever Told) is a close second,this movie has an untouchable magic of it's own.Sure they spent a little too much time on Barabbas,and Robert Ryan's portrayal of John the baptist is no better than a cold reading, as if he's seen the script for the first time.Or any thing else you want to nitpik about.But the score is wonderful and so many moments will force tears from your eyes,if you only relax yourself into movie.If you contemplate getting this DVD I strongly suggest that you do.The picture is remastered nicely and the sound is very fulfilling,bonus features;not much, total less than 10 minues.Even if you have a personal recording from TCM like I do. Get the disc.It offers you an even more panoramic view not shown on Turner Classic Movies. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

Read "The Amateurs" instead
I guess things must balance out for Tiff Wood. After having his Olympic efforts being beautifully chronicled by David Halberstam in "The Amateurs", he is portrayed as a childish, selfish buffoon in this pointless movie. The novice level rowing aside, this movie makes "Oxford Blues" look like "Chariots of Fire" or "Breaking Away" as far as a well made, inspiring sports movie. Unfortunately, I know of no decent rowing movie that has been made. "A Fine Balance" by Brad Lewis is a very good film but it is a documentary.
To summarize, the rowing is terrible, one develops no affection for any of the characters, and the historical facts are skimmed over. Brad Lewis, the only main character in Halberstam's book to win an Olympic gold medal, is mentioned only as "Paul Enquist's partner". I consider Mr. Lewis one of the lucky ones in this regard. Save your money and read the book instead. Or you can have my DVD copy for free.

Gods in Pain
'Gods in Pain,' the title of one of the chapters in the film, would have been a better title for the entire film.

This film has many shots of rowing in the morning mist. Some say too many; I say not enough. My three favorite scenes; 1) the crews rowing to the Harvard boathouse; 2) Tiff Wood taking to the water in a single for the first time, with Parker placing his hand over the water to show how flat it is, as if to say, "If you can't balance the shell, it's you, not the water," and 3) the real Tiff Wood rowing a single past the actor's four.

Rowing, like chess, is an activity of the mind. Once you watch a few beautifully rowed strokes, it's boring, unless you are a rower. And even rowers get bored watching rowing. You need to do it. So, to make a film about rowing is hard. Thank you to the group who put this film together.

not quite so flawed
Certainly the actors had less than perfect rowing form. And this does limit the amount of footage of edit-free rowing that can be shown. However I was surprised that they found actors who could row at all. And I was also pleasantly surprised at the professional level of film making in terms of photography, sound, editing and acting. Since this is the only dramatization of rowing that I am aware of it is easily recommended. Highly evocative of the colors, sounds and feel of the sport. So overall authenticity (given the actors marginal rowing skills) is preserved.

If I wanted to watch rowing skills I can put in a VHS of the Olympics or maybe last years IRAs. I think the producer / director of "Rowing Through" had other intentions.

A flawed effort
As a former oarsman, this film is a major disappointment. While visually stunning, it suffers from a major flaw: none of the actors can row at a level anywhere close to the one they are supposed to be at. As a result, despite grunting and grimacing, they cannot convey the true spirit of the sport: the combination of pain, power and grace. Besides making the story difficult to believe, it also prevents the director from getting us into a "rowing rhythm" as what would otherwise be flowing scenes must be shortened and edited to avoid showing too many obvious "crabs". Too bad. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

STCOK SHOTS ALONG THE MOHAWK
As Ron Wood mentionned in it's review, most action sequences in MOHAWK comme from John Ford's DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK. This 1939 film provided stock shots for many other movies. In 1944, one shot of Mohawk warriors setting Fonda's place afire in DRUMS was used in BUFFALO BILL. Battle scenes around the fort were then used in MOHAWK. Almost the same scenes were used again in the pilot episode of the DANIEL BOONE TV series starring Fess Parker in the mid-60s.

As far as stock shots are concerned, BUFFALO BILL seems to be the absolute winner, at least in the western genre. Stock shots of the battle scene (War Bonnet Creek) were used by Fox in numerous productions. PONY SOLDIER with Tyrone Power (begining of the movie). SIEGE AT FEATHER RIVER (end of the movie, which was produced by Panoramic which provided FOX with B pictures). THE TIME TUNNEL TV series (Episode : Little Big Horn) also used the battle to pass as Custer's famous last stand.
Another depiction of that battle, from THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON starring Errol Flynn, was used in BUGLES IN THE AFTERNOON starring Ray Milland. Though THEY DIED was black and white, and BUGLES Technicolor, the stock shot did fit because it was being watch through binoculars by Ray Milland and modified from black and white to sepia.

If anyone knows of other stock shots in westerns, I'd be glad to read about that.

Mohawk
This is a rather interesting movie in that it uses a lot of distant scenic and action shots from John Ford's Drums Along The Mohawk. This is most noticeable, because all of a sudden while viewing the film, the production values are suddenly increased and the cinematography becomes almost ravishing instead of run of the mill that the "new" portions of the film just can't match.
As an aside, I remember seeing Drums Along The Mohawk twice when I was a kid in the 1940s in a small town where I grew up and it was in black and white; only when I saw it on VHS in the 1980s did I see the true Technicolor format. And then I was knocked out again when I saw portions of it appear in Mohawk, a film I missed at the theatres and only caught on DVD about a year ago.

Does anyone know of any other films that utilized parts of older films as part of their format to save on production costs? I'd like to hear from anyone on this. I know this happens, especially in World War II films with documentary battle footage, but haven't noticed the use of regular production footage in newer movies, unless they referred to the earlier film as a link in a series.

Early American artist finds romance trying to keep peace.
Scott Brady and Rita Gam are not especially believable as a colonial era artist and his native American love interest, but the unusual time period, and energy of the production make "Mowhawk" fun. Evil white men try to incite the Indians to war, while the high-integrity artist works to maintain peace as he does portraits of various characters. ... Read more

Reviews (66)

An intelligent, inspiring life of Christ.
"King of Kings" was my favorite religious motion picture when growing up, and I believe it still is. When MGM first released it in 1961, movie critics irreverently dubbed it "I Was a Teenage Jesus", since the role of Christ was given to teen idol Jeffrey Hunter. In hindsight, it was an unfair appraisal. Unlike other actors who have played Jesus in the more sublime, "stained-glass" manner that appears to be the norm, Hunter's portrayal showed a very human, energetic Messiah whose divinity still could not be denied. Interestingly enough, "King of Kings" was directed by Nicholas Ray, who six years earlier had directed James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause". This time around, our "Rebel" has a well-defined Cause which places Him at odds with the religious and civil authorities of His day. The film's international supporting cast consists mainly of lesser-known character actors whose performances are mostly able. The great actor/filmmaker Orson Welles gives an uncredited performance as the film's narrator; curiously, the narration was written by science fiction author Ray Bradbury, who is also uncredited. The film's stirring music was composed by Miklos Rozsa, who was no stranger to religious epics (the soundtracks to "Quo Vadis?" and "Ben-Hur" stand out among his other works). Beautifully filmed in Spain, "King of Kings" is an intelligent and reverent profile of He who has been the Way, the Truth, and the Life to hundreds of millions for almost 2000 years. END

Hunter as Jesus Shines!
'King of Kings' features Jeffrey Hunter's finest performance, as a young, dynamic Jesus of Nazareth, and his intrerpretation, open and earnest, is the best part of a movie both uneven and flawed.

Produced by many of the people responsible for 'Ben Hur', the film utilizes some of the same sets, actors (Frank Thring appears in major roles in both films), and composer (Miklos Rozsa, whose score for 'King of Kings' was one of his finest). The cast was fleshed out by respected actors (Robert Ryan is too old but charismatic as John the Baptist, Siobhan McKenna is a glowing Mary, Brigid Bazlen, a deliciously wicked and oversexed Salome, Harry Guardino, an 'over-the-top' Barabbas, a VERY young Rip Torn scores as Judas). While the cast didn't have the 'star power' of 'Ben Hur', or many other Christian epics, the actors, by and large, perform credibly in their roles, particularly Hurd Hatfield and Viveca Lindfors, as Pilate and his wife, Claudia, and Ron Randell as Tribune Lucius.

The film was a MUCH less expensive project than 'Ben Hur'; the budget restraints show most glaringly in recreating Jesus' ministry (most of Christ's miracles are only referred to, not shown), and extras casting (Spanish townspeople, overdubbed with some truly RIPE dialogue!).

The film works best when focusing on Jesus; unfortunately, it veers off into distracting subplots about Barabbas and the zealots, and the decadence of Herod's court. These stories consume a LOT of screen time, and damage the overall impact of the film.

Yet rising above all this is Jeffrey Hunter's interpretation of the Savior. Easily the most audience-friendly of all the actors who have assailed the role, Hunter took a lot of flack for his 'matinee idol' good looks, and piercing blue eyes, but his kindness, his sincerity, and the complete believability with which he delivers Christ's words overcome any qualms about his appearance! The Sermon on the Mount is a film high point, and magnificent; the Crucifixion and Resurrection have the kind of power that can bring a lump to your throat, even after repeated viewings!

While 'King of Kings' lacks the big names and budget of 'The Greatest Story Ever Told', or the emotional core of 'Jesus of Nazareth' or 'The Last Temptation of Christ', in Jeffrey Hunter, the film presents possibly the most compassionate of all screen Messiahs, and makes this film a MUST for the holidays, and your collection!

Jesus Christ Never Existed.
'King of Kings' made in 1961 is a famous film some people have seen or at least heard about. Most people fail to realize all of that doesn't matter because Jesus Christ never existed!! Jesus Christ is a mythological figure the church has exploited for hundreds of years and now the film industry has for almost a hundred years. There is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence that Jesus Christ existed. Even if he did exist, it would be highly unlikely he would have received that kind of punishment.
It is a shame that con artists like these filmmakers are using this mythological figure to make millions of dollars. People have to start swaying away from the manipulations of the church and the filmmaking industry and start looking at the hard facts. Jesus Christ and his crucifixion never happened.

The best one in its genre.
I'm positive that a lot of people have turned back their gazes to former versions of Jesus's life and death in view of the huge acceptance of Mel Gibson's recent film. Revisiting some of the classic titles is a good exercise in hindsight. How things have changed? To the worse, to be sure.

"King of Kings" is an excellent film, one of the best epics ever -alongside the also painfully underrated "The Fall of the Roman Empire"-. The film tells the story straightforwardly, mixing in it a little of historic and political speculation. It has a good rhythm, high visual artistry, admirable sets, genuine multitudes... Of course, Jesus is the wisest and most benevolent of men, and it is but right that he be also the most handsome of all: Jeffrey Hunter at his physical best and with bizarre -but culturally right- characterization.

Miklos Rosza's score is precisely one of its major assets. I think that he hit the target when it came to produce grandiloquent but av