King David (1985) User Reviews

Biopic about the Second King of Israel with spectacular battles and good production design in ancient times

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 19 August 2013]

Exciting Biblical story with rousing battles , intense drama , love and hatred , being some moments proceeded in slow moving pace . The film focuses the epic David's epic life (1010-970 B.C.) , retelling his complicated family relationship , rebellion his son Absalom , and generally tackling the intricacies of his love story with Bathsheba. The movie takes place in the thirty-nine year period between 961 and 1000 B.C. , David , (Richard Gere portrayed him from ages as young as twenty-three to as old as seventy years), who had five wives , is a very human figure who is recorded in the Bible (Samuel, Books 1 and 2) , conqueror Jerusalen and author of the Psalms . King Saul of Israel is jealous of the fame and adoration of David, who long ago slew Goliath and brought victory to Saul's armies . It tells from the prophet Samuel (Dennis Quilley) appointed him , when after in his kingdom Saul (Edward Woodward , second of three films he made with Bruce Beresford) and his son Jonathan (Laff) were vanquished by Philistines . When Saul was murdered by a blade slashed himself, David claimed his reign by right of his marriage to Saul's daughter , Michal (Cherie Lunghi) . The continued threat and domination of invaders countries forced the Jewish tribes uniting under a strong king : David . He's specially recorded his acquisition of his favorite spouse , Bathsheba (Alice Krige), though he had a harem, too . After King David sees the beautiful Bathsheba bathing from the palace roof, he enters into an adulterous affair which has tragic consequences for his family and Israel . The new wife was accomplished by sending her husband named Uria the Hitita , a warrior serving as mercenary , into way in war . He is attracted to Bathsheba, the wife of one of his soldiers who is more devoted to army duty than to his wife . David & Bathsheba succumb to their feelings . Their affair, her resulting pregnancy, & David's resolve to have her husband killed so Bathsheba will be free to marry, bring the wrath of God upon the kingdom . David must rediscover his faith in God in order to save his kingdom from drought & famine, & himself from his many sins . His throne was marred by the habitual dynastic fights between his sons , Absalom (Jean Marc Bar) killed Ammon and after rebelled and then was murdered . There are developed various events about David-life , such as the arrival in Jerusalen the Ark of the Covenant with holy qualities ; David playing harp , in fact , David had entered Saul's household as a sort of musical therapist , the Hebrew politics intrigues and pitting against the Old Testament wrath of the Prophet Nathan (Nial Buggy) and , of course, David- Goliath (George Eastman or Luigi Montefiori) fighting is also seen , defeating with a throwing wave a ten-foot-tall Philistine giant . Finally , Absalom rebellion and killing Ammon, succeeded Salomon , son of Bathseba, he inherited the reign at David'death and became himself a major king of Israel , building the famous temple of Salomon where held the Ark . David and Salomon were the two great kings of Israel .

This Biblical epic contains good set decoration and art direction but some moments being a little boring that it makes stately pace . The movie gets a colorful cinematography by Donald McAlpine and evocative music score by Carl Davis. The motion picture was professionally directed by Australian director Bruce Beresford in his second American Hollywood movie whose first picture stateside had been Tender mercies. He's a good director with success (Breaker Morant) in Outback . Since the 80s , he has worked mainly in Hollywood and far away places (Mister Johnson , Black robe) with hits (Double jeopardy , Crimes of the heart, Tender mercies) and misfires (Silent fall, Her alibi , King David) ; however his own film-making has been overlooked . Although a number of actors have been prized in his movies, he has obtained too many flops .

.

Other films about this Biblic king are the following : ¨David and Bathsheba¨ (1951) by Henry King with Susan Hayward , Gregory Peck and Kieron Moore ; ¨David and Goliat¨ by Ferdinado Baldi with with Orson Welles as King Saul , Ivo Payer as David and Edward Hilton as Prophet Samuel ; ¨A Story of David¨ (1961) with Jeff Chandler , Basil Sidney and Donald Pleasence . And ¨David¨ (1997) TV by Robert Markowitz with Nathaniel Parker as David , Jonathan Pryce as Saul , Leonard Nimoy as Samuel , Sheryl Lee as Bathsheba and Ben Daniels as Jonathan

Richard Gere out of place

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 6 April 2016]

It's the life of David (Richard Gere) who would be the King of the Isrealites. Prophet Samuel chooses the youngest son of Jesse of Bethlehem. He dies and leaves a message to King Saul (Edward Woodward) that God has forsaken him but not his people. In the battle against the Philistines, David strikes down the giant Goliath. David befriends Saul's son Jonathan who saves him from Saul's plots against him. After Jonathan and Saul are killed in battle with the Philistines, David is crowned king. The Godly rule is brought down by David's affair with the married Bathsheba (Alice Krige).

Everything is fine until Richard Gere shows up. It's a bit slow sometimes but Woodward is a solid British actor. The scale is big enough when it's required. Goliath is great. It's all good but there is something too modern about Gere's beautiful hair. His mannerisms and his voice is too modern, too American and too different from everybody else. He simply looks out of place. Otherwise, this could have worked.

King Richard

[richardchatten · 5/10 · 7 February 2021]

Beautifully if somewhat glacially shot in Italy but sorely missing Miklos Rosza's music. Bruce Beresford rolled up his sleeves and got stuck into this throwback to the sort of thing that DeMille had made so profitably for Paramount during the twenties & thirties; but who this time took a bath to the tune of $2,500,000 on their original $22 million investment in this implausible project that was probably slightly ahead of it's time, five years before the huge success of 'Gladiator' made ancient history sexy again.

Described by David Thomson as "a genuine eccentricity", it's very much of it's time, including a spot of slow motion swordplay, gorier violence than in the fifties and the scruffy eighties beards and shaggy mullets worn by the men as they address each other in hushed tones.

Follows biblical story remarkably well

[prohta · 5 February 2003]

I was really impressed by how well this story followed the bible exactly. How Solomon annointed David to be King while Saul was still on the throne, and how David played the Lyre for Saul, including the 23rd Psalm. The story was slow, but impressive. I thought the movie was well acted, for the type of story it was. I could actually imagine that the actors protraying the persons of the bible were the actual people. That is something!

It may be in the Bible- but you can't always put it in a film without looking ridiculous

[JamesHitchcock · 5/10 · 13 March 2014]

There were two Golden Ages of the Biblical epic. The first was during the silent era of the 1920s. The second started in the late forties, when Hollywood needed to rely upon spectacle in its battle with the upstart newcomer television. DeMille's "Samson and Delilah" can be seen as marking the opening of this revival, and several notable dramas such as "The Ten Commandments" (also by DeMille) followed it over the next fifteen to twenty years.

This second Golden Age lasted until about the mid-sixties, with Huston's "The Bible" perhaps marking its close. Thereafter there were occasional productions based on the New Testament, but the Old no longer seemed to be of interest to film-makers. "King David", therefore, made in 1985, is virtually unique, an Old Testament epic from the eighties, a decade during which not only Biblical epics but also those based on Classical or Mediaeval history had fallen from favour. When eighties film-makers wanted to work in the epic style they generally turned to modern history, as Richard Attenborough did with "Gandhi" or Bertolucci with "The Last Emperor".

The look of this film is far less grandiose than that of the traditional epics directed by the likes of DeMille. I think that this is historically accurate; the Kingdom of Israel was not a great empire like Rome, Egypt, Babylon or Persia but a modest Middle Eastern state, notable not for its wealth or power but for the fact that its monotheistic religion gave rise not only to modern Judaism but to Christianity and Islam as well. The costumes and architecture, therefore, are far more sober and restrained than those on view in most epics, and the battle scenes are fairly small-scale.

The film is relatively faithful to Biblical accounts of the life of David, although there are some discrepancies. Filming this particular story does, however, pose some problems which director Bruce Beresford and the scriptwriters never really overcome. The first problem is that the story of David is one of the Bible's more complex narratives; this film draws upon four different Books, Samuel I and II, Chronicles I and the Psalms. (Some well known Biblical heroes have their stories told in a few verses, or at most chapters). This narrative contains several different stories- the power struggle between David and Saul, the friendship between David and Jonathan, the love-story of David and Bathsheba and the rebellion of Absalom- any one of which could have been the basis of a complete film in its own right. This film tries to deal with all of them, and does so rather perfunctorily. An example of what I mean is that Bathsheba's husband Uriah the Hittite never appears, even though as the third party in the triangle he would be a key figure in the love-story element. David's estranged first wife Michal is not omitted entirely, but her role here is a very minor one.

The second problem- one common to a lot of Biblical epics- is the discrepancy between the harsh and often intolerant tribal morality of Old Testament religion and the gentler ethos of modern Christianity. In the film David is seen as the advocate of a greater tolerance when he spares the lives of the Philistine civilians after defeating their armies, an act of mercy for which he is taken to task by the prophet Nathan. Nathan's position is that if Jehovah has mandated the wholesale slaughter of pagan nations, then it is not for David, as Jehovah's anointed, to question the justice of His commands.

There is an attempt to soften, even justify, the David/Bathsheba affair by painting Uriah as a brute who refuses to consummate his marriage and who treats his beautiful young wife with savage cruelty, a version of events not found in the Biblical story This does not, however, prevent the scriptwriters from presenting us with the scene (which is in the Bible) where Nathan rebukes David for adultery and his part in Uriah's death, although its impact is lessened by the fact that the man now appearing as the voice of conscience and morality was, only a few scenes earlier, appearing as the advocate of religiously sanctioned genocide.

The best acting contribution, by a considerable margin, comes from Edward Woodward as the tormented Saul, a man quite literally driven mad by rage and by his unreasoning jealousy of David. (Woodward was better known for his television work than for films, but he had earlier collaborated with Beresford on the excellent "Breaker Morant"). Richard Gere, however, seems miscast in the title role; even Beresford was later to admit that Gere, who received a Razzie nomination for "Worst Actor", is much better in contemporary pieces than he is in historical dramas. Alice Krige as Bathsheba is never given much to do except stand around looking beautiful. There are a surprising number of little-known actors, some in quite major roles. It would, for example, make an interesting quiz question to test the knowledge of the most enthusiastic movie buff to name two films starring, say, Jack Klaff (Jonathan) or Jean-Marc Barr (Absalom).

Like a number of other reviewers I was amused by that scene in which Gere, dressed only in a loincloth, does a dance through the streets of Jerusalem. Yes, I know it's in the Bible- it was presumably part of the coronation ritual of the Israelite monarchy- but that doesn't prevent it from looking ridiculous. That last comment, in fact, could sum up my view of the film as a whole. A lot of this stuff might be in the Bible. That doesn't necessarily mean you can put it in a modern film without looking ridiculous. 5/10

Too simplified biblical adaptation! Wrong depiction of King David's life!

[marcin_kukuczka · 5/10 · 29 May 2005]

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!

Not Biblically based

[thepakman-09160 · 1/10 · 24 December 2015]

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.

Good but lacks the detail to make it great

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 13 March 2014]

David is my favorite biblical character aside from JC himself. I never tire of reading the events of his life: the trials & perseverance, the agonies & ecstasies, the successes and failures.

"King David" (1985) stars Richard Gere in the titular role and covers the bulk of the events. You'll see all the following happenings in the picture:

Samuel's choosing of David as successor to King Saul; Israel's battles with the Philistines; the fight with the hulking Goliath and David's victory with a sling shot; David playing his harp to soothe Saul's torment; Saul's increasing jealousy and hatred of "the man after God's own heart"; David & Jonathan's brotherly love; David's wandering in the wilderness with his men, fleeing Saul; his stealing of Saul's spear while he sleeps in a cave, sparing him; Saul's suicide; David dancing in his skivvies when the Ark of the Covenant is brought into Jerusalem; Michal's love and, later, hatred of David (as he dances before the LORD); David secretly ogling the nude Bathsheba bathing from his palace roof and the ensuing adultery; David's indirect murder of Uriah (Bathsheba's husband) and Nathan's rebuke; Amnon's rape of his half-sister Tamar; Absalom's justified slaying of his half-brother Amnon; Absalom's stealing of the Israelite's hearts; Absalom's death and David's grieving

The film is worthwhile if you desire to see these numerous events depicted before your eyes. The cast, sets, costumes, locations and filmmaking are for the most part of the highest order for 1985. Edward Woodward is excellent as the jealous and bitter King Saul, even though he lacks Saul's height (as he was a head taller than any other Israelite). Most aspects of the David/Goliath challenge are great, like the troops shown on two separate hills. Cherie Lunghi possesses an intelligent and unique beauty as David's first wife, Michal, while Alice Krige is beautiful as Bathsheba.

Despite the numerous events covered in David's life, the film only runs 1 hour and 50 minutes before the closing credits. The problem with this is that there's at least 3 hours of material and shortening it down to less than 2 hours prevents the viewer from being captivated by the myriad characters and happenings. This will leave some struggling to connect with the people and their stories.

Regardless of the numerous events flying by, the film has a bit of a lazy vibe. There's very little spectacle like "The Ten Commandments," but it's more realistic. David was a ruddy and handsome man, according to the Bible, and Gere is quite good in the role. Yet David was a very passionate, a "man after God's own heart, which is effectively shown in some parts, like what he does with the model of the Temple at the end, but not in others, like when the boy fights Goliath there's zero passion and righteous ferocity as seen in the Biblical account (e.g. "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine who would defy the armies of the living God?!!"). Plus the film doesn't show the serious trash-talking that went back and forth between the two. The fight's just too low-key.

Although the gist of the story is accurate there are inaccuracies that some nitpick, e.g. Goliath challenged David and the Israelites himself, he didn't speak through another man; David picked up stones before going out to fight the giant, not while fighting him; Absalom waited a long time before slaying Amnon, he didn't do it immediately; etc. Changes like these aren't that big of a deal and were made for dramatic or condensing reasons.

Someone criticized the film for showing Bathsheba at fault for seducing David. Actually, they both shared fault equally. Everyone in Jerusalem knew the king stayed home while the troops were out fighting, so Bathsheba was likely fully aware that the king could catch a tantalizing glimpse of her while she was bathing on the nearby roof. Besides, even though David was the king, she could have said 'no' when the proposition of adultery later presented itself. In other words, she was both into it and into David.

I've seen "King David" four times now and enjoy it every time. It's a well-done cinematic account of David's life for 1985 with a kinda weak ending. But the picture cuts off more than it can chew in a mere 1 hour and 54 minutes, leaving the viewer detached from the characters and events beyond David, in particular those who know little about the biblical account.

But don't listen to those who give this film an absurdly low rating. They're way off. It's good; it just lacks the detail to make it great. Nevertheless, I'd watch "King David" any day over the overrated "Braveheart."

The movie was shot in Italy with studio stuff done Pinewood Studios, London.

GRADE: B

M.DeMille,where art thou?

[dbdumonteil · 2/10 · 27 December 2004]

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.

Decent Historical Epic

[ThomasColquith · 7/10 · 8 January 2022]

"King David" is a pretty good historical drama; it is not as bad as some of the reviews state. It has good production values and it moves at a nice pace making this a rare epic that is not too long. However the weak point of this film is the script; it could have been better. Thus I rate this film a 7/10.

Why are the Philistines speaking Hindi though ?

[ElDiomedes · 4/10 · 28 November 2020]

I mean, I can get past all the inaccuracies because well, it's bibiblical and old, but, when David enters the Philistine castle in disguise, workers and masters are speaking Hindi. Like, really ? What the heck man.

Underrated and unsung

[mikemckenzieradio · 8/10 · 17 July 2006]

It's biblically accurate. It has a gritty and realistic feel. Unlike the great De Mille films, the location and sets give it that stone age look that the Judea of that era would look and feel like.

Edward Woodward's performance as Saul is strong. His ability to contort and rant makes a very believable fit of dementia. The only person I think that could have played that better would be Dennis Hopper. Who knows, maybe someone will create another biblical film with him as King Saul.

This is a very unsung, and underrated film. Richard Gere's performance was nothing short of stunning.

The giant Goliath was real, menacing and evil. Bathsehba was a real-world, believable stunning beauty-natural. I wish there were more films of this quality when it comes to biblical stories.

A Biography of Ancient Israel's Famous King

[romanorum1 · 7/10 · 31 December 2015]

Based upon the Books of Samuel and Kings of the Holy Bible, this attractive and colorful movie captures the life and times of warrior-king David of Israel, who reigned three thousand years ago. Much of the movie is devoted to King Saul (Edward Woodward), David's predecessor. Woodward's performance is powerful, and captures well the personality of the biblical personage. Richard Gere as David does not make an entry until twenty minutes or so have passed. David does not even become king until the movie is well over half completed. But in general the film is more accurate than typical movies of this genre (for instance, like "Samson and Delilah"), although there are inaccuracies. For instance, the Star of David was introduced centuries after David's time and not while he was alive.

The film commences with King Saul and his officers waiting for the arrival of the prophet Samuel (Denis Quilley). The Amalekites have just been crushed. After Samuel arrives, he tells Saul that he has disobeyed God's commandment and that he has been reproved. Therefore none of his sons will succeed him as king. Samuel then meets with Jesse (Arthur Whybrow) to tell him that one of his sons will be Saul's successor. The elder and more military ones – Eliab, Abinadab, and Shammah – are surprisingly rejected (Scripture tells us that there were also other brothers). Jesse tells Samuel that he has another son, a shepherd called David. As he meets with God's approval, David is anointed with oil by Samuel. When the Philistines then assemble their army against the Israelites, they taunt them with their giant hero, Goliath (6'9" Luigi Montefiore, a/k/a George Eastman) and challenge the Israelites to a duel. When David with a simple slingshot unexpectedly defeats Goliath and beheads him, the Philistines flee in fright. Saul remarks, "An entire army at my command, yet it takes a shepherd boy to wipe out our disgrace." David never returns to his father; rather he stays in the military for ten years. Nathan (Niall Buggy) succeeds Samuel as prophet.

David marries Michal (Cherie Lunghi), Saul's youngest daughter. Skillfully playing music with his harp, David soothes the aging Saul's growing melancholy. Saul gradually turns against David, who flees. Pursuing David, Saul murders Ahimelech (Hurd Hatfield) and the high priests, who had given David shelter. Most of the dirty work is done by a gentile, Doeg the Edomite (Christopher Malcolm). Jonathan (Jack Klaff), Saul's son, befriends David, who finally flees to King Akiss (Achish, Tomas Milian) of the Philistines and stays for sixteen months. The Philistines challenge the Israelites to battle. At Gilboa, King Saul is defeated and killed along with his three sons. David's subsequent victory dance meets with Michal's disapproval (According to Scripture, Michal is punished for her action by barrenness). Then again, David does have other wives. He continues to preserve the sacred Ark of the Covenant, which contains the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments.

On a rooftop King David espies Bathsheba (Alice Krige) bathing and is immediately smitten. A complication is that she is married to Uriah. In reality Uriah was a decent husband sent to the forefront of attack by David to assure his death. For his sin, the firstborn son of Bathsheba and David did not survive beyond seven days. Also, David had to live by the sword. God eventually does find favor with David, however, when Solomon is born. But the rebellion of his favorite son Absalom (Jean-Marc Barr) grieves him, especially when he is killed in battle after his long hair gets tangled in a tree. The guilt-ridden David then decides to reform although we do not actually see him performing penance.

Even though we are told that the aging David defeated the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, and the Edomites, the ending is rather abrupt. Many of his later deeds are covered only in narrative. And David's last instructions to his successor Solomon are not factual. On a positive note, the movie is very attractive, and there are terrific location scenes (filmed in Italy and England) that feature classical symmetrical shots. When there is a battle, the scenes feature many extras and are well-done. In general, this film is a decent movie although not a classic; Edward Woodward's performance as Saul is worth the price of a rental.

Gere dances. In a diaper. And it's not a dream sequence. Do you need to know any more?

[MBunge · 4/10 · 4 May 2012]

This thing looks, sounds and feels like the Reader's Digest version of some lame, 1980s, network TV miniseries that's had most of the action scenes cut out and a couple of nude scenes put in. I don't know how much money they spent on it, but it looks very cheap and low budget compared to the biblical epics that preceded it and it can't hold a candle to the big screen spectacles that followed it. The direction is lifeless and at times awkward. The story is paper thing and provides no subtext to any of King David's life. It neither grounds itself in realism nor takes on the moral and ethical questions posed by the source material. The performances, as a whole, aren't so bad with Richard Gere being the only one who looks out of place. And that's true in just about every way. The rest of the cast has an accent. Gere doesn't. Yeah, it's THAT kind of motion picture. Besides being proof that Alice Krige is one of those women who did get better looking as she got older, this movie simply doesn't have enough to offer.

If you're unfamiliar with the tale, Saul (Edward Woodward) was king of ancient Israel. He offended God and the prophet Samuel (Denis Quilley) anointed a shepherd boy named David (Ian Sears) to be the next leader of the Jews. David joins the army, slays Goliath and rises to be Israel's greatest general. Then Saul's jealously and resentment cause him to turn against David, who flees and spends years in exile. Only after Saul dies on the battlefield does David assume the throne. He falls in love with Bathsheba (Alice Krige), and gets her husband killed so he can have her. That causes the prophet Nathan (Nial Buggy) to tell David he shall pay for his sin, which he does by needing to have his rebellious son Absalom (Jean-Marc Barr) assassinated. David's plans to built a temple for the Ark of the Covenant go unfulfilled, but he does leave behind another son, Solomon, to be king.

The best things about King David are the work of Woodward as Saul, Quilley in a small role and Samuel and Cherie Lunghi in an even smaller role as Saul's daughter. The rest of the production ranges from "eh" to "ugh", highlighted by Gere's infamous diaper dance. If you haven't heard about it, after Saul dies and David comes to Jerusalem with the Ark, he strips down to his underwear and boogies through the city. It is there in the Bible, but that's no excuse. You can't stick Richard Gere in what looks like a diaper and have him wildly gyrate around and expect people not to roll their eyes. It doesn't look ridiculous. It looks retarded. If they had to have that scene in the film, it was absolutely essential to somehow prepare the audience for it so their reaction wouldn't be "WTF?" That didn't happen and so it's hard not to burst out laughing when Gere starts shaking him moneymaker.

David was a warrior king, yet there's little warfare on display here. If you're not going to do that, it become essentially to give some depth to the political and religious conflict both between Saul and David and between the kings of Israel and the prophets. That doesn't happen either. This is a very shallow and superficial recitation of Biblical stories without any elaboration or context. This wasn't a movie made for adults, but nude scenes with Krige and Lunghi keep it from being for kids or the whole family.

Bruce Beresford's direction is unimaginative except where it's inexplicable. There are too many times when he has the camera in the exact wrong place or the exact wrong distance and his staging possesses neither naturalism nor grandeur. Combine with the obviously limited budget, King David is the most visually boring religious movie I've ever seen.

But here's the thing. King David isn't so bad that you can fun mocking it. It's just limp and flat and without any ambition. Don't bother with it.

King David

[Coxer99 · 16 June 1999]

Even Woodard's fascinating characterization of Saul cannot save this drab biblical epic about the King of Israel who took on Goliath. Gere is way out here as David, but he makes an effort. Beresford tries too hard to copy Lean or Kubrick in the battle scenes. It's almost too obvious.

Not accurate according to the biblical story

[monty-rom-jay · 3/10 · 28 October 2016]

This movie was overall OK to get an idea of David's life, but it deviates from the biblical account quite a lot. E.g. 1. the way David breaks the model of the temple in anger after Absalom's death is outrageous. Viewers may get the impression that David was a man of high temper. 2. the way he instructs Solomon his son to go with his heart instinct instead of the prophets' advice is totally contradictory to what we see in the bible. If you read the biblical account, David was a man who always consulted God before going into battle, and didn't take his own decisions without consulting God.

I give a low rating due to these and other deviations.

They Ruined One of the Greatest Stories Ever!

[macsandlin · 2/10 · 19 April 2004]

I admit I'm biased when it comes to Bible stories, especially really great Bible stories. So I was pretty skeptical when I picked up this movie, but I'd been wanting to see a good film version of the Life of David ever since I taught a class on I&II Samuel. I should have trusted my instincts and passed on this movie. The fact that they changed some details of the Biblical story isn't nearly as bad as the fact that they changed the entire theme of the story of David. In the movie, David has this obsession with wanting to see God face to face, and this plays itself in everything he does. He also has this theology based on emotions. Now this is a popular idea today (God deal with man through the heart and emotions only), but it just doesn't fit with David's story which is one of submission and trust.

One of the problems with making a movie like this is that the story is much much to big to be told in a two hour film. I'd like to see a Lord of the Rings style telling of David's life. The narrator is horrible, and he sounds like he's reading scripture when he's not. The Goliath fight is aweful. Goliath doesn't even speak, but has his shield bearer (who doesn't bother bearing a shield) taunt the Israelites and David. David chunks about 6 rocks before he is actually able to kill the giant. Then he's really sad about it. He says to God in a weepy kind of voice "So be it" before cutting off Goliath's head. COME ON!!!! In the real story he says "You come against me with a sword and a spear and a javlain, but I come against you in the name of the Lord God of Hosts. This day I will cut off your head and give your flesh to the birds of the air nad the beasts of the field that the world may know that there is a God in Israel." I mean, who cuts that line out??? Another lousy thing was when David's first son by Bathsheba dies and the movie deals with it by a little narration scene. There's no fasting, no laying on his face for days, even the line "I will go to him, but he will not return to me" is cut and used at Absolem's death instead. All we get is the stupid narrator saying "David's first son died, but God gave him another one named Soloman." STUPID STUPID STUPID!!! More lousy stuff: The young boy who plays David as a kid looks like a fairy, and judging by the Bathsheba scene, baby oil was the most common substance for cleaning oneself in Ancient Israel.

The acting is mediocre with the exception of the guy who plays Samuel who is wonderful, and the guy who plays Absolem who is terrible.

The set and costumes are ridiculous for the most part (especially the wigs), but David actually looks like a king some of the time which is a refreshing change from Saul.

Finally, I can't imagine what they were thinking when they slapped a PG-13 rating on this movie. There are two extended Nude scenes one of which is a lengthy full frontal shot of Bathsheba rubbing the aforementioned baby oil all over herself. This movie should be rated R, and if someone tackles this story as a film project in the future I hope that they make an accurate R rated version.

Move Over, Plan 9!

[YAS · 1/10 · 27 November 1999]

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.

One of the better biblical-related-movies

[elinmagdalena · 7/10 · 19 December 2005]

First of all, I can't quite understand all the negative response this film has gotten, but perhaps it's because I'm not a fan of the Bible. And might I add, the Bible is not some sort of documentary, it's a fictional book just like many other books. Most likely based on some experiences, some dreams and some tales told by nameless people from the past. The thing I like about this film, is that it portrays the persons as actual people, flawed and emotional. One has to be a cold-hearted, immoral murderer to obey the laws of the "god" as he is portrayed in the Bible. And I get the feeling he (if he has a gender), I rather call greater forces "it" personally, or "she" as females are better at creating life than males; I get the feeling that he would be rather disappointed at the humans, and the ones who probably misread all the signs he gave. But, we'll never know, so it doesn't really matter. When David follows his heart, I think he does the only right thing a person can do. One can read signs whatever way one wants, therefor it's impossible to know what a "god" would want. If there is one, or several, we simply don't speak the same language. And, to avoid horrible mistakes, I would rather follow my own heart and best judgement, than to murder and sacrifice and make enemies at the rate that the prophets would have David do. I think David in this movie is a very sympathetic person, and it's a well acted film about religion and it's complexity.

As others have said, this film is the worst in its class

[chrismcreynolds · 1/10 · 1 October 2006]

The only defense anyone can claim for this project is that it was the first contemporary Biblical film using US actors and contriving to appeal to the broadest possible range (to sell tickets to). That is the only reason I can see for the awful hacks made to the authentic story that has since been done at least once with a far superior script and production in the mid 90s. It was produced with lessor known actors and the focus was instead on authenticity and I have no doubt in the end that far more people have paid to see the latter film in the theater or through video sales. I don't recall if it is called "King David" in the main title or simply "David" with a secondary title more specifically indicating the Biblical story.

I bought this film some time in the late 80s, when it was the only video I could find related to any Biblical story, other than "The Ten Commandments" and "Jesus of Nazareth" both of which are truly excellent films. Now that I have the newer version of David, I can't see any reason to take up any more shelf space, even though I already wasted my money on it and time watching it. That is how bad it is. I would feel guilty in playing it now that at least one far superior version in available the fate of this video will be that it is the sole video I have ever thrown in the garbage after determining it a liability with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

An interesting take

[bz_comics · 7/10 · 9 March 2021]

For a mainstream movie, this is actually fairly accurate depiction of King David's life. Would I recommend it? No. The line at the end of the film undoes the Biblical message that it gave.

Very disappointing film

[halligatorcan · 3/10 · 28 April 2007]

I was expecting a very powerful film but it is very insignificant. The characters are not well introduced and are not credible. It would have been easy to follow the story from the bible instead they choose to change the story and by doing that they deluded all the punches. As an example the battle between David and Goliath: in the scripture it is showed as a powerful miracle that put in evidence the authority of God, David, acting under the hand of God, hits in one shot Goliath who himself defiles the God of Israël, in the film, it is not Goliath that defiles the God of Israël and David plays hide and seeks with Goliath.

There is no link between the different parts of the history, no link between characters, very poor.

One of the better Biblical adaptations

[JasonT413 · 8/10 · 19 November 2002]

This is one unjustly maligned film. For the most part, the acting is well above average. Edward Woodward's love/hate relationship (enfasis on the hate) with David comes across excelently. Richard Gere does an adequate job. I can't stand his style on most films that I have seen him but here he is just fine. The Jonathan character is heroic and handsome, while the actor who portrays the prophet Nathan does as best a job as anyone could do. Some minor problems/irritations, the location of Jerusalem should have been a more scenic and lush one, not desert-like. Jerusalem might be semi-desert today but 3,000 years ago it was a beautiful land flowing with milk and honey. Highlights include David's dance before the Ark of the Covenant, the battle scene versus the Phillistines where King Saul is killed with his sons (Mel Gibson must have seen it) is Braveheart light, but realistic nonetheless. There are many more, I just wish it could have been longer due to them skipping a whole part of his later life all the way up to his deathbed. One of the better Biblical adaptations nonetheless.

It has survived better than I expected

[steiner-sam · 7/10 · 29 March 2024]

It's a Biblical biopic of King David (Ian Sears/Richard Gere) set about 900 BCE in the Kingdom of Israel. The movie follows the chronology of the Old Testament's 1st and 2nd Samuel and 1st Chronicles. Occasional verses from Psalms also enter the script.

We see a flamboyant and erratic Saul (Edward Woodward), as well as severe prophets Samuel (Denis Quilley) and Nathan (Niall Buggy). We see David's rise in popularity after overcoming Goliath (George Eastman) and his increasing tension with Saul despite marrying Saul's daughter, Michal (Cherie Lunghi), and his significant friendship with Saul's son, Jonathan (Jack Klaff). Of course, we meet Bathsheba (Alice Krige), various children of David's, and military leaders like Abner (John Castle) and Joab (Tim Woodward).

Critics have generally dismissed this movie. It survived better than I expected despite some noticeable flaws. The script is uneven and lays too few clues for those unfamiliar with the Biblical text. It does take liberties with the Old Testament text in places. It would have improved with an additional 30 minutes of nuance and flinched less about the era's brutality. The script's brevity meant many characters, like Jonathan, though extremely important, received short shrift. Woodward, Quilley, and Buggy were strongest in their roles, and Gere was quite passable.

To use the title of another movie, "Oh God!"

[harden_my_heart · 1/10 · 19 December 2004]

This would have to be Richard Gere's worst misfortune. He accepted a role in a biblical epic of what looks like a film which had a very small budget. A film with a nonsensical script of a supposed event in the history of the world.

This is a movie which has neither a great deal of artistic merit, nor a lot of historic or religious fact. Watch it if you want to, but you have been warned of its lack of merit.

The film tells how King Saul is told by a prophet that he is not being harsh enough with the enemies of Israel, and the prophet demonstrates to the King how Israel should treat the captured enemies by beheading the captured enemy king.

Enter David the shepherd, who charms Saul with his musical skills, and - predictably - slays the champion of the Philistines, Goliath.

From there, the plot goes downhill, and could only interest people who are dedicated to the bible.