my, my. even in the silent era, big epics like these were being made, by none other than Demille! i would watch this any day over today's rubbish, and i'm only 15! but you can be any age when it comes to watching a spectacle of our lord Jesus, KING OF KINGS!
The Passion of the Christ has nothing on this film....also check out another silent Jesus film called "Jesus of Nazareth" (also known as From the Manger to the Cross" its another really good one too
There will NEVER be another director like DeMille. He showed his artistry in so many silent films like this, The Ten Commandments and The Cheat. While many criticise his later talkies, I feel that Union Pacific and Cleopatra (AND the 2nd version of The Ten Commandments, needless to say...) stand up remarkably well. I must admit that I'm a little partial to The Greatest Show on Earth, while being conscious of its shortcomings!
The colourisations are original sections in Technicolor, and some tinted portions as well, not modern colourisation. The two strip process was used, to the max length printable at reasonable cost on the distributed prints. Only as colour proved workable did Hollywood move to full length films. Technicolor worked because the prints themselves were not too expensive to make.
I saw this on cable, obviously remastered in a number of ways, such as color at the opening scene with magdelen and the nobles, but i found it interesting color goes away when we move to judea, i wonder if this was by design?
The most amazing scene was God's display of anger at the crucifixion. how Demille pulled of such effects in 1927 is testament enough to his greatness.
Also our first glimpse of Jesus through the blind boy's eyes as he begins to see is pure genius.
I agree wholeheartedly with you about your final statement. I actually made a comment on it before reading yours, but I don't know if it will be posted.
I personally think the colourization looks awful. Perhaps it was done much later, but left in, but for what purpose, I don't know. It may be to show the excess of the rich? Anyways, I want to find this film so I can share it with my family at home.
No, thze color was there to begin with, it was early 2-strip technicolor (only red and green, all blue is missing). They did some of the key scenes in color because this was really a "high prestige film"
It could have been so much better. First, HB Warner playing Jesus was about 20 years too old for the part. Second Mary Magdelene didn't have an affair with Judas, where did DeMille get that garbage from? It's not in the Bible. If DeMille had made a straight Bible picture it would have been better; too many liberties with the story causes the film to be taken down a notch or two, or three or four. A shame really, there were other good things about this picture.
KING of KINGS' used a giant wall set that was later re-used for the SKULL ISLAND scenes in 'KING KONG' , though sadly, I can't see it depicted in these clips........
I hate when people say that DeMille simply produced over-the-top big-budget epics and little else- his films were not so superficial as people often claim...King of Kings clearly demonstrates this.
my, my. even in the silent era, big epics like these were being made, by none other than Demille! i would watch this any day over today's rubbish, and i'm only 15! but you can be any age when it comes to watching a spectacle of our lord Jesus, KING OF KINGS!
classical38 1 month ago
I will watch this when I get a chance.
JimColyer 4 months ago
The Passion of the Christ has nothing on this film....also check out another silent Jesus film called "Jesus of Nazareth" (also known as From the Manger to the Cross" its another really good one too
sillygrl23 1 year ago
is that the original trailer from 1927
tmMcHugh 2 years ago
There will NEVER be another director like DeMille. He showed his artistry in so many silent films like this, The Ten Commandments and The Cheat. While many criticise his later talkies, I feel that Union Pacific and Cleopatra (AND the 2nd version of The Ten Commandments, needless to say...) stand up remarkably well. I must admit that I'm a little partial to The Greatest Show on Earth, while being conscious of its shortcomings!
bjnevin 2 years ago
Comment removed
videolgs95 2 years ago
ben hur is the picture that will live forever
videolgs95 2 years ago
@videolgs95 Only if you mean the silent version. The Charlton Heston remake doesn't hold a candle to it.
papaknowsbest16 5 months ago
The colourisations are original sections in Technicolor, and some tinted portions as well, not modern colourisation. The two strip process was used, to the max length printable at reasonable cost on the distributed prints. Only as colour proved workable did Hollywood move to full length films. Technicolor worked because the prints themselves were not too expensive to make.
swallin19 2 years ago
its a good movie, but i prefer the 1961 movie its much better.
videolgs95 2 years ago
I saw this on cable, obviously remastered in a number of ways, such as color at the opening scene with magdelen and the nobles, but i found it interesting color goes away when we move to judea, i wonder if this was by design?
The most amazing scene was God's display of anger at the crucifixion. how Demille pulled of such effects in 1927 is testament enough to his greatness.
Also our first glimpse of Jesus through the blind boy's eyes as he begins to see is pure genius.
Palang81984 2 years ago
I agree wholeheartedly with you about your final statement. I actually made a comment on it before reading yours, but I don't know if it will be posted.
I personally think the colourization looks awful. Perhaps it was done much later, but left in, but for what purpose, I don't know. It may be to show the excess of the rich? Anyways, I want to find this film so I can share it with my family at home.
RavenBettyBlue 2 years ago
No, thze color was there to begin with, it was early 2-strip technicolor (only red and green, all blue is missing). They did some of the key scenes in color because this was really a "high prestige film"
georger64 2 years ago
"Harness my zebras—a gift from the Nubian king!"
GRober1050 2 years ago
It could have been so much better. First, HB Warner playing Jesus was about 20 years too old for the part. Second Mary Magdelene didn't have an affair with Judas, where did DeMille get that garbage from? It's not in the Bible. If DeMille had made a straight Bible picture it would have been better; too many liberties with the story causes the film to be taken down a notch or two, or three or four. A shame really, there were other good things about this picture.
daughterrevolution 2 years ago
If you want a straight Bible story, go read the Bible.
elperromagico 2 years ago 2
Zebras pulling a chariot? Nope, I don't think so. Zebras can't be trained.
zeekwolfe 3 years ago
probably one of Demille's best films after The Ten Commandments and Samson and Delilah.
mtr0118 3 years ago
KING of KINGS' used a giant wall set that was later re-used for the SKULL ISLAND scenes in 'KING KONG' , though sadly, I can't see it depicted in these clips........
rabsmiff 3 years ago
Question:
If this was a silent film, where did the narration come from?
Thanks.
joeyjojo4 3 years ago
I'd say that it was rereleased in the cinemas after the silent period and this trailer was used to promote it...
bjnevin 3 years ago
It was re-released in the theaters in 1931, they added a soundtrack for the movie being silent. Truly a great movie!!
agrel25952 3 years ago 2
Are you joking? Please say your joking.... ?
Sanctusdei 2 years ago
I hate when people say that DeMille simply produced over-the-top big-budget epics and little else- his films were not so superficial as people often claim...King of Kings clearly demonstrates this.
bjnevin 3 years ago 6
i love this movie!
zvrck 3 years ago 2
classic!
elbethere 3 years ago
Keep uploading Cecil B. Demille clips!
hendrickross 5 years ago 7