THE KING OF KINGS -- The Dullest Story Ever Told

Review by Daniel Lima

Conceptually, The King of Kings could work in several ways. It could function as an earnest rendition of the story of Jesus of Nazareth, aiming not to educate per se, but to impress upon the viewer the majesty, tragedy, and grandeur of the Son of God. It could serve to contextualize the story for nonbelievers, as a sort of road map that shows why this figure resonates with so many people thousands of years after his death (or, less charitably, as propaganda). At the very least, it could just be a fun adventure for undiscerning children. Sadly, it fails on all fronts, begging the question of why it was made in the first place.

At first glance, it seems a curious object. While it is being distributed by Angel Studios — no stranger to religious or politically conservative media — the film was produced entirely by the South Korean animation house Monoc Studios, even going so far as to recruit Hollywood A-listers as voice actors before seeking distribution.

Even more interesting is the form the narrative takes. Technically, this is an adaptation of a Charles Dickens manuscript that he would recite to his children every Christmas, and so here the framing device is Dickens telling his son the greatest story ever told. Incidentally, the man himself begged his family to never publish it, and they patiently waited until his last child died before selling the manuscript to a publisher. This does not make it into the movie.

The film attempts to weave Dickens and his son directly into the narrative as observers, with the son growing increasingly enraptured in a tale that we are told is self-evidently enrapturing. This is obviously inspired by The Princess Bride, but fails to work here for two reasons. Firstly, while the interactions between the child and adult in that film are charming, the pair here are incredibly grating, with a bit of physical comedy in the beginning giving way to constant interruptions of the child screaming about how exciting this story is. This breaks up the momentum that the Biblical narrative might actually have otherwise, and since the two can’t directly interact with the story, it just serves to add to the runtime with increasingly annoying shouting.

The bigger issue, however, is that The Princess Bride tells an exciting story, and this does not. The nativity, meeting the apostles, the crucifixion, the resurrection, the story of Jesus Christ clearly holds power as written in the Bible. A religious text, however, does not have to engage an audience in the way art does. Past films have gotten around this by focusing on a particular time in his life and treating him like a person with thoughts and feelings worth examining, or else telling the broad narrative in the form of a cinematic epic. Instead, this is a “nothing but the hits” rendition of his life, jumping through important parts of his life that even someone not well-versed in Christian lore is sure to be familiar with. It's a dramatically unsatisfying approach, inherently creating distance between the audience and the man.

Perhaps The King of Kings could have been compelling even without a traditional structure, but that would require selling this material in an artfully composed, visually dynamic way. Monoc drop the ball here, delivering a film that recalls lazy direct-to-video licensed films from a decade ago. There is a notable lack of detail to the 3D modeling, a lack of the imagination in bringing to life the world of first century Judea, a pronounced stiffness to the character animation, and a plainness to the many miracles of Jesus that rob this rendition of any of the wonder or beauty one may expect from a story of divine grace. Considering the freedom that that the medium allows for, it’s a glaring missed opportunity to create a unique vision of well-trodden material.

Anyone intrigued by the cast, know that each is phoning in their performance. Oscar Isaac as Jesus sounds like either a gift or a joke, but the result is far less interesting than one might expect, as he gives the most disinterested line reads of the entire film. Kenneth Branagh, Uma Thurman, Forest Whitaker, all the name talent give the absolute bare minimum of what is expected of them. The less notable professional voice actors have some moments, with a handful of amusing jeering from Brooklyn-accented Pharisees, but this is no one’s finest work.

Given the lack of narrative, visual, or dramatic appeal to anyone who is not a believer, one would assume that The King of Kings is built to preach to the choir. It makes some mercenary sense for a foreign studio to produce a film for the Christian American market, as they seem to consistently show up for media that caters to them. Angel Studios has made a name for itself catering to a religious, traditional, and conservative audience. There is nothing inherently wrong with someone who identifies as such gravitating to a film that reflects their worldview and values.

Even viewed from that lens, however, it’s hard to see how this could be satisfying. I cannot imagine being a hardline Christian and preferring something as toothless and unambitious as this over, for example, the God’s Not Dead movies. Those films are clearly animated by a bloodthirsty strain of religious fundamentalism that gives them a sense of purpose and character. Indeed, there are plenty of other works that voice popular Christian grievances, that articulate a worldview, that treat Christian dogma and scripture as sacrosanct, and bring it to life with a level of care and earnestness that makes it feel important.  Why would anyone settle for this?
​
I would be remiss if I said there was no red meat for the base here. Christian animosity towards the Jewish people has deep roots, with the idea that they bear collective guilt for the sin of killing Christ being used to justify their oppression for centuries. This film all but gives a full-throated endorsement of that idea, depicting a Jewish horde enthusiastically cheering for the murder of Jesus to a reluctant Roman official. That this exists besides an insistence that the town of Nazareth is in Israel (a term always used by Jewish people for the region, but the film otherwise uses “Judea”) is even more intriguing, pointing to a dichotomy that exists within the contemporary American Christian right between their support of the state of Israel, and lingering animus towards the Jewish people. Of course, at the end of the day, this is a movie for children, so this is left unenumerated on.

The King of Kings, however, does not work as a kid’s movie, and I can’t imagine a child who would prefer this to whatever they can pull up on their iPad. It’s not for Christian adults who want an energizing rendition of the story of their savior. It’s certainly not for people with not inherent interest in Jesus of Nazareth whatsoever. Whoever goes into this expecting more than the most bare bones, cursory treatment of one of the most enduring legends in written history is bound to be disappointed. The Good Book has got to be better than this.
​
The King of Kings is now in theaters. 

Rating: 0.5/5