MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

thepakman-09160 I happened to see this movie on TV a moment ago, and I don't think that it is a good movie at all. The reason for this is that the movie is not entirely Biblically based. Yes, parts of the movie are based on what the Bible tells us, but the movie also inserts a bunch of dialogue and storyline that is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The movie fails to portray David and Saul accurately. For instance, according to the movie, David's last words to his son Solomon are to "follow his heart." Nowhere in the Bible does David ever say this to Solomon. David's actual last words are recorded in 2 Samuel 23. David also gives Solomon a heads up in 1 Kings 2. David's words to Solomon are more in line with "Follow God and keep God's commands." Another error is David's relationship with Bathsheeba. The movie portrays the relationship as if David were rescuing Bathsheeba from her abusive husband. This is completely false- 2 Samuel 11.

Marcin Kukuczka There has been widespread criticism of this film by Bruce Beresford, much has been said about its drawbacks and hardly any merits. I agree with most of them but I would like to concentrate on one very significant note that makes this movie a really distorted image of king David, undoubtedly, the most eminent king of Israel, a pearl of the Old Testament.SERIOUS SPOILER: Throughout the movie, the viewer gets an impression of David as someone who wants to see God face to face, someone who waits rather than trusts. It is the most fundamental mistake of this movie! What faith is the faith that requires seeing face to face? It's no longer faith but rationalism. David was a man of trust, the man of love to God, the man of penance primarily, yet, the man of great courage (the last aspect is not skipped in this movie but it is simplified, too). Beresford, in this movie, attempts to combine David's piety with his down to earth curiosity of God. In other words, it is no longer the biblical message that is the focus of the film but a "magical" search for God that requires to SEE. I laughed at the scene when Samuel (Denis Quilley) comes to Bethlehem to anoint the new king of Israel and holds two balls that are to shine when the right son of Jesse (Arthur Whybrow) appears before him. The director has skipped one of the key concepts of the Old Testament: the Bible ignores and even rejects any magic.Another drawback of the movie is the narrator. The words are not exactly from the Bible, they are only made to seem so. And sometimes, if they seem so, they are highly condensed, interpreted. It is most noticeable close before the end when the narrator says about the death of David and Bathsheba's first born son who was soon replaced by Solomon. It skips the most important aspect of David's sin: penance, so significant in this biblical moment. Terrible simplification!!! I also did not like the way that David - Goliath's fight is presented. Although it seems spectacular (crowds), the scene is barely accurate. The power of Goliath was his gigantic force rather than armor. It was a kind of "Phillistine Samson" rather than a short man whose only power are the sword and the shield. That really gives a wrong impression of this important event from David's life. The director forgot that David killed the giant in the name and with the Help of the Most High. Another simplification is the way Bathsheba (Alice Krige) is showed. There is no word in the Bible which says that she was persecuted by her husband. In this case, David would be her rescuer and God punished him for the right deed...? The way this plot is presented in the movie leaves much to reflect on what, in fact, Mr Beresford wanted to convey: David's seriously sinful deed or a controversial act for which God punishes people.However, it would be highly unjust to judge the whole movie as not worth attention. There are a few aspects that make it worth seeing. Firstly, most of the cast (with some exceptions) give fine performances. Richard Gere is quite accurate as David, Alice Krige is a beautiful Bathsheba, Edward Woodward perfectly presents Saul's fury combined with despair. And one more actor: Denis Quilley, who was known for a few biblical and historical epics, gives here a wonderful portrayal of the prophet Samuel. Really great! Secondly, the locations the movie was shot in are not identical with Jerusalem, but look very similar. It is, except for other places, the town of Matera (southern Italy) where almost twenty years later, Mel Gibson shot his PASSION. The landscape there gives an impression of authentic Jerusalem, especially in November. Thirdly, some moments of the movie are well made, for instance the death of David's son Absalom (Jean-Marc Barr) and the battle at Giboa. Finally, the music is very good. I liked the melody of the most famous psalm "The Lord is my Shepherd" - sublime piece that brings peace to the souls of 21 century-viewers as it did to the soul of the king Saul! To say it justly, "King David" does not have much to offer, it is, in no way, one of the top biblical epics, it distorts much from the life of the great king, but it may be entertaining as a movie. 5/10!

dbdumonteil M.De Mille ,you used to regale us with your "Samson and Delilah" or "ten commandments".They used to say your stories were not faithful to the Holy Writ.But who cares?Did the sultan care when Sheherazade was telling him endless stories which enthralled him?Bruce Beresford ditches the De Mille mold and opts for a serious reading (that's what the credits say)of the bible:it's a very tedious flick,which gives you the feeling that you are attending an interminable Sunday school lesson.The Lord is as intractable selfish and jealous as ever.The generally gloomy atmosphere -in spite of luminous landscapes- dampens any spirits,which is a shame in the case of a movie which should enlighten its audience.Of course we've got Goliath,Samuel,Nathan,and Bathsheba -who has barely five lines to say,whereas in Henry King's "David and Bathsheba" (1951),Susan Hayward got the lion's share.Richard Gere's wooden acting does not help.It's a boring movie.

YAS For many years now this movie has remained my personal choice for Worst Movie Ever Made. Oh sure, others have come along to try to knock it off its pedestal, but KING DAVID remains, in that respect anyway, King of the Hill, A-Number One, Top Of The Heap. It's amazing to see so much money and talent poured into a fascinating, large-scale story of murder and betrayal and gods and scheming women and intrigue, only to result in a dreary stink-bomb of a flick that should forever stand as a cautionary lesson to those who would make a Sunday School story out of material that is, in the original, decidedly adult. The end result here is a movie that is embarrassingly awful even on fast-forward.