InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

gavin6942 Jesus Christ (H. B. Warner) faces religious and political oppression during his ministry and in the days before his death and resurrection.While this was not the first telling of the Jesus story on film, it was probably the first epic telling, or at least the first really good epic telling. The film is now 90 years old but could still be shown in theaters today and appreciated by audiences, whether they happen to be Christian or not. It is just fine film-making.The film is the second in Cecil DeMille's biblical trilogy, preceded by "The Ten Commandments" (1923) and followed by "The Sign of the Cross" (1932). Perhaps more people should be watching these films than the far more popular Charlton Heston version.

Tad Pole . . . directly ordered from producer\director Cecille B. DeMille by God Himself, according to one of the first Intertitles of KING OF KINGS. Therefore, it's obviously sacrilegious to rate this movie below a perfect score of "10." It would be nice if ALL of the world's religions could lend themselves to film adaptations, since some have hundreds of such flicks in circulation. Others behead film makers, which is the ultimate outrage against practitioners of Film AS Religion. One of several fallacious charges made against this 1927 silent, KING OF KINGS, is that it helped inspire the Nazis to "sell" the Holocaust as a revenge killing. However, Caiaphus, the High Priest of Israel, says on an Intertitle card after the rending of the veil over the Holy of Holies, "I ALONE am guilty" for Jesus' execution. Even if Hitler did not grasp that this confessed crucifixion mastermind was long dead and buried by 1927, other Germans were around to fill him in and point out that under this blame-the-Jews logic, he also should be attacking Pontius Pilate's Italian descendant Mussolini, instead of being so Palsy Walsy with him. Controversy aside, is this a MORE authoritative religious film than THE LIFE OF BRIAN or APOCALYPTO? Don't forget they're putting on the Council of Massachusetts on the Boston Commons Feb. 29 to set the canon for the Church of Filmogy. Buffers can be part of it, or be apocrypha.

rdjeffers Monday July 30, 7pm, The Paramount, Seattle The life of Jesus from the conversion of Mary Magdalene to the crucifixion is revealed in beatific splendor.Directed by Hollywood's master of the spectacle, The King of Kings (1927) featured Cecil B. DeMille's by then standard combination of moralizing melodrama played against dizzying production values, monumental sets, and a cast of thousands. Outwardly expressing disdain for Sunday-school stereotypes, DeMille cast fifty-two-year-old H.B. Warner in the title role, dressed him in flowing robes and bathed him in glowing light, while art directors constructed scenes reproducing the work of 298 old masters. To sanctify Jeannie MacPhereson's anti-Semitic, evangelical Christian with-a-showbiz-twist screenplay, DeMille invited members of the clergy to visit the set, and received the stamp of approval from Will Hayes. Highlights include the spectacular palace of Mary Magdalene, the Calvary tempest and bookending Technicolor scenes.Grauman's Chinese Theatre held the West Coast premiere for their grand opening, charging $22 a seat!

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