Where's Robert Harris When You Need Him? - Page 3

I don't think Lorre's monologue at the end of M is over the top. The situation the character finds himself in is extreme, and Lorre does a great job of putting a human face on a monster. Contrast The end of M with the end of Stranger on the Third Floor ("Why deed you lie to me?") for an example of just how wide a range of intensity Lorre had at his disposal.

Later on, dissipation took its toll and Lorre's acting chops deteriorated, but in the early days he was a powerhouse. For a great example of what he could do with his voice alone, look for the radio adaptation of Poe's The Black Cat. Incredible!

I was referring to the chase proper towards the end. With the few remaining cells being constantly bombarded with info, I'm not immune to the ol' brain playing tricks, but I recall being very surprised and impressed with how 'modern' and 'contained' the acting was for a  film straddling the silent and sound eras, and then being slightly disconcerted by the comparative overacting - relative to what had gone before - by Lorre during the chase. I'll have to dig it out for a refresher.

Short review of The King of Kings, which I've heard about since I was a teenager, and finally did a blind-buy on for about $15 at the age of 46.

 

Anyway, let's start with the good stuff. It has a beautiful and majestic score by Miklos Rozsa. PQ and AQ are both excellent, in part thanks to it being filmed in 70mm. And Warner has done just a beautiful job with a frame by frame restoration. It's perfect, looks like it was filmed yesterday, and in fact puts many modern films to shame in term of the clarity and pop of the image.

As a movie and a piece of drama I'm afraid for me it's only so-so. It does have some good moments, but it's stiff and stagey in places even compared to The Ten Commandments imho. My favorite part was the sermon on the mount.

It was in general fun to see the charismatic and handsome Jeffrey Hunter, who later gained fame as Captain Christopher Pike in Star Trek, in this role a few years before. He does a good job with a difficult role, I think. My problems were with some of the other performers (the one who plays John the Baptist esp), as well as the script, and the direction, both of which had some major problems imho.

But that score! It's truly wonderful, and for fans of film scores perhaps worth buying this blu-ray at the right price for that alone. Think of it as a great high rez music disc with beautiful pictures and you'll get more than your money's worth. I played the introductory music after the movie was over while I was doing dishes. 

 

To each his own, Robert Ryan's "John the Baptist" was always one of my favorite parts of this film which I first viewed in a movie theater as a youngster in 1961.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crawdaddy
 

 

Isn't that interesting. I mean that seriously. What it is you liked about his performance? Maybe I'm just wrong. Or maybe my expectations were just wrong for what you can do with this kind of film. He seemed so stiff and pious to me that he made Hunter look like a fluid and natural actor, but again maybe I'm just off base...

 

We can both agree that the music is terrific, I assume!

 

There is no wrong or even right when it comes to film and acting appreciation.  It's your opinion while I differ in mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crawdaddy
 

 

Although I like KING OF KINGS, to me it's always come up just short of being a great picture. It was good, but lacked that last "oomph" to put it over the top. It may be that Jeffrey Hunter didn't have anyone to play off in the film. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is a case in point. Charlton Heston is v-e-r-y good. That kind of role is hard to pull off without looking ridiculous. That he never does is testament (pun intended) to how good Heston is. Even so, the picture is helped immensely by that crackling performance from Yul Brynner. The interplay between the two pushes THE TEN COMMANDMENTS into greatness. Yes, it's corny schmaltz -- but it's Grade A, Choice Cut corny schmaltz with oomph galore!

+1

You've put your finger on part what's wrong for me with Kings and what works with TTC. Although for me Kings is more than a little short of true greatness.

 

I really do not get the appeal of King of Kings at all. For a time, I guess it deserved some attention as one of the few talking films about Christ that actually presented him full on as a walking talking character, as opposed to just a mysterious figure shot from behind or in shadow. As a youngster, I was really a fan of the film, but now I find it unwatchable. I find Hunter extremely disappointing as Jesus. He plays the part with no personality, like an automaton. I guess they did not want to offend anyone with the performance; so they chose to have him sleepwalk through the part. It may be that much of the film was post-dubbed, which limited the actors' ability to come alive in their parts. I think Hunter could have been good in the part. I just don’t think he was.

 

I think Robert Ryan is even worse as the Baptist. I have had the movie on when TCM shows it and people actually laugh at his line deliveries. Some of the other post-dubbed actors “Are—you—the---Messiah?” are equally laughable. Also, I keep reading in reviews that the film allegedly concentrates on “the political aspects of the story”; but I do not see how they see that. For one, Pilate and Herod Antipas and the High Priest are constantly shown hanging out together when Jew and Gentile would almost never have done so. I guess they are referring to the Barabbas/Judas part of the story and the Jewish Zealots. I think King of Kings is the first film to try to come up with a motive for Judas’ betrayal other than unbelief/greed. The big battle sequence is way over the top. It makes the story seem ridiculous when the Romans actually release Barabbas from prison in place of Christ after Barabbas has caused so much death and destruction in that battle. They have been trying to capture Barabbas for most of the film (he's at the top of the 'most wanted' list), and then release him?

 

I think the filmmakers simply wanted to pour on the spectacle and chose to go for epic qualities rather than concentrating on Christ. I see no reason for the long opening sequence of Pompey’s campaign from 63 BC. I can see that they wanted to demonstrate that Roman dominance in the area went back to 63 BC; but that could have been done as a short montage while Orson Welles explained that the Romans directly controlled the area. Christ seems to be almost a supporting character in what purports to be a movie about him.

 

There are certainly things to like about the movie. It is well shot. There are some great visual moments. I like the sequence in which the Baptist hears Christ's response to his "are the one we have waited for?" question. I agree that Miklos Rosza produced another masterpiece of a score. This is JMO. People respond to movies and religious experiences differently. Even in worship services, there are many styles of music and presentation so as to appeal to as many people as possible. Some may prefer to hear the old hymns while young people want contemporary music, etc. King of Kings just does not work for me. I think the script sank it. IMO, there was not a great film made about Christ until Zefferelli made Jesus of Nazareth for television in the 1970’s. I’d love to see a high quality release of that.

 

 

David BK: Great review. Wow, from my perspective, and I know everyone's results vary, you've nailed in this review what is fundamentally wrong with the film. And I agree with you that it does not do a particularly good job of explaining the political context. I read that in one of the reviews, which is one of the reasons why I got it, but I felt pretty let down. But the score is great! Best part of the film...

 

 

 

Just thought I would point out that Ray's KING OF KINGS  suffered much post production editing and truncation --  it has been called the MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS of the epic genre-

 

It is one of the shortest ever epics at 2 hours and 48 minutes -- at least a half hour and to an hour of footage may have been cut --  for example , an entire subplot with actor Richard Johnson as a character named David , a Romanized Jew , who returns to Jerusalem , was removed -- although one brief shot remains of Johnson - -as Jesus enters the temple on Palm Sunday, he stops and looks at Johnson(dressed all in black) .   There is also an extremely bizarre moment during the Passion when a terracotta pot appears on Jesus' head after the crown of thorns is put on him and soldiers seat him on a bench - it lasts only a few moments and then is gone- like magic!(I double checked this on my dvd and it is definitely a sloppy editing error)

 

I think that KOK could have been great but now only has great elements , mainly its score, Hunter's performance(despite the dubbing) and the cinematography.

And the direction, especially the use of split dioptres to achieve deep focus effects that are quite rare in large format films.

 

 

 

In King of Kings I like the table used in the last supper - a blatant CND symbol during the era of Cuba and Kennedy.  Mostly I agree with David B-K's assessment above, especially the observation that Jesus is very often a bystander in his own movie, the "water" to the "fire" of Barabbas.  And speaking of whom, I really like Richard Fleischer's Barabbas, a downbeat tale that works oppressively and purely on the level of symbol - light/dark/fire/water/slave/master/life/death/afterlife etc.  It's unusually violent, has a strange, almost noir-like ambience with a hero haunted by a man who stole his own death and by Jack Palance's psychotic gladiator.  It also prefigures Fleischer's later film about American slavery, Mandingo.  In fact, apart from Ben-Hur, I'd say Barabbas was the best "Jesus film" prior to Mel Gibson's The Passion.  

I aree about Barabbas wholeheartedly.It also looked superb in 70mm in its initial run of which the current dvd is but a very pale facsimile.
 

 

Mr Turner,

 

It is good to find you are a member here. I'm surprised it took me so long to notice!

 

As a young lad living in rural Kent in the late 80's your weekly film reviews on Teletext were one of my main sources of film info, along side Barry Norman.

 

Your review of Mountains of the Moon for Teletext made a particular impression on me. 

 

I would always look out for your writings and was lucky enough to get your book on Lawrence as a Christmas gift the year it was published. The film had already blown my mind a few years earlier.

 

Thanks to your efforts you certainly had an effect on my film journey and I'm glad I discovered a love for classic films at a young enough age to have the time to indulge in them.

 

With the advent of BluRay we certainly live in a priviledged age for viewing classic films. A long way from the VHS widescreen copy of Lawrence that first blow my mind on my Dad's 32" Philips widescreen TV with it's weird veneer of digital smearing.

I agree that BARABBAS is an underrated film and  that it deserves restoration - as I recall it was originally released in a longer cut overseas  in 70 mm and possibly stereo sound --- probably too much to hope for that that has survived and could be released.

 

On the other hand , I recently found a German release of the epic ULYSESS starring Kirk Douglas which has two dvds , the 2nd of which is the uncut 109 minute English language version in widescreen - 1:1:55 - never released in the US.

Thanks for this wonderful picture, Steve. I've never seen KOK but I knew Siobhan McKenna in the mid-seventies. Seeing her brings back many memories so will have to get my mitts on a copy.

 

Here is how I would rate the films about Jesus:

 

1. Jesus of Nazareth

2. The Passion of the Christ

3. The Miracle Maker

4. King of Kings (1961)

5. The Greatest Story Ever Told

 

...but there is a great distance between 1. and 2. !!!!

Brynner is fabulous in TTC. Hadn't seen it in 15 years and was shocked at the breathtaking colors the BD presents of the scene when Rameses assembles the chariots to chase the fleeing Hebrews. The beauty of it is a close second to the most ravishing images ever - the march into Wadi Rumm in Lawrence. If I live to be as old as Moses, I'll never understand how Lean could have acquiesced to (or reportedly suggested!) it's elimination for reasons of length following the premiere. I'd be jealous of cutting a single frame from that masterpiece, yet willing to sacrifice any number of other scenes in order to save that particular flower. It doesn't move the story along or add anything to it but, as I read recently, Lawrence is above all a sensory experience, and the scene adds immeasurably to that. Ignorant of its existence until Robert Harris restored it to us, the effect on one who'd many times seen only the eviscerated version was profound.

 

 

 

I think The Ten Commandments is best enjoyed in several bite-sized pieces, maybe in ten sections, or perhaps 20 minutes per commandment.  Someone commented above about its silent movie technique - it is incredibly static, unwatchably so in my opinion, and framed like schoolbook murals.  It's pious and self-important and you think, well, I would never invite Moses to dinner.  What a crashing, priggish bore he'd be.  It is, though, worth enduring for one line from Mr Brynner.  Returning from the watching Moses part the Red Sea, he thinks in a fit of pique that he might disembowel Mrs Pharoah. He draws his sword, then drops it noisily to the floor,  then slumps poutingly on his throne and says the only decent line in the script: "His God Is God."  Fade-out. 

 

It was meant to be framed like biblical illustrations.

 

 

 

 

A biblical epic that's pious?  How shocking!

 

 

 

A story about an all-powerful deity considers itself important.  Another shock!

 

 

 

Not making good conversation at dinner doesn't make a person uninteresting.

 

 

I never quite understood how the majority of users here and in other forums are very quick to dismiss King of Kings yet praise TTC as if it was in another league. Imo both have their flaws although these are very different flaws indeed.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

It's funny how different people's perceptions are.  While I'd never for a minute call "The Ten Commandments" one of the great films, I'd call it, like 1956's other big picture "Around the World in 80 Days", one heck of of a great show.  It *is* static; everything is framed like a mural.  It's the biggest pageant ever filmed, a giant tableau and, for me, one of the most watchable movies ever made.  The nearly four hours fly by for me because as Leonard Maltin says in his review, "Few subtleties, but few lulls either."  It's pious without being ponderous, moving when necessary yet light-hearted and intentionally campy at times to keep things from getting too serious.  It's something that Hollywood rarely makes anymore -- "Fun for the entire family."

 

My take exactly.

TTC needs to be taken with a grain of the pillar of salt, and anyone who tries to analyze it needs to be analyzed in turn. I have a friend who, while he enjoys the movie, tries to pick it apart as if it's Hamlet, seriously arguing that such a small burning bush couldn't possibly be seen on a mountain from such a distance and that God shouldn't need any signs to warn him to pass by certain establishments (?!). I tell him that the thing that bothers me most about the movie is Moses returning from the burning bush sequence with a thicker mass of hair than before, and this only because I'm envious and rather piqued about it! Why pile on more to someone who was already doing ok but deny those who could use a little help?

As for inviting him to dinner; I'd be more comfortable sitting around having a few pints with ol' Moses than, say, Mr. "Choose your next witticism carefully, Mr. Bond!" Goldfinger, or Captain "One can't command respect from last night's partner in debauch" Bligh. Now those are prigs!

As far as I remember, ol' Moses didn't do much preaching in TTC. He didn't attempt to convert the Egyptians and losing his temper after all he did for the Hebrews was understandable - their decision to party when they did wasn't the smartest ever! But imagine the stories he'd have to tell once he loosened up, first as a conquering prince capable of building a city, then his metamorphosis to a miracle-working emancipator!

No one who defends The Ten Commandments here thinks it's a masterpiece of subtlety, or sees it as anything more than pure camp. Just a gorgeously photographed, appropriately acted entertainment that nevertheless made it into the Library of Congress and AFI's top ten in the epics category.