IMDb user comments for
King David (1985)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

17 comments in total

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Almost fatally flawed, but not without merit, 17 July 2007

Author: TrevorAclea from London, England

King David was the Alexander of its day, a critically reviled epic box-office disaster that was damned more for what it got right than what it gets wrong. Critics at the time were aghast at the violence and ridiculed the scene where Richard Gere dances through the streets of Jerusalem in a loincloth, but in actuality both are straight from the Book of Kings and are considerably watered down: this David doesn't give his father-in-law hundreds of Philistines foreskins in return for the hand of his daughter, and the decimation of his enemies takes place safely offscreen. But the film's attitude to religion is strikingly grim. This isn't the cosy feelgood God of Sunday school but a vengeful, unforgiving God who orders genocide and abandons those He anoints. Both Saul and David fall from Grace, but strangely enough it's Saul's fall that really registers. Edward Woodward is superb in the role, and all too easily dominates the film in the face of little competition from some especially bland British and Irish actors.

Gere should be ideal casting for David's vanity at least, but he's a transparent presence in the film, lacking depth and over-reliant on his limited range of affectations. But he's not helped by the fact that David never becomes a character or even an active participant in his own life story: if anything, he is almost a bystander observing the deeds of others. After slaying Goliath, we never see him in battle or earning his reputation as a great king, and he doesn't feature in either of the two underwhelming battle scenes, a problem highlighted by intercutting them with shots of David miles away waiting to hear the result. As an epic, it's desperately underpopulated (they had major problems getting enough extras to the Italian locations), and you get the feeling at time that it's almost a picture made up of leftovers – the costumes were originally made for Scorsese's first abortive attempt to film The Last Temptation while the Ark of the Covenant probably has 'Property of Indiana Jones' stamped inside it Somewhere in there there's an idea fighting to get out about the search for God, but unfortunately it's so low-key and evenly paced that there are no real highs to the film. Carl Davis' score has its moments and it's not the turkey its reputation implies, but it never catches fire. As Bruce Beresford noted, they should have taken the hint when they started shooting in Israel only to get caught up in snowstorms – someone was definitely trying to tell them something!

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
King David, 16 June 1999
Author: Tim Cox from Marietta, OH

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.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Too simplified biblical adaptation! Wrong depiction of King David's life!, 29 May 2005

Author: Marcin Kukuczka from Cieszyn, Poland

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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!

---

5 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
One of the better Biblical adaptations, 19 November 2002

Author: (JasonT413@aol.com) from Barcelona

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.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Underrated and unsung, 17 July 2006

Author: mikemckenzieradio from United States

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.

---

should read the book!, 16 March 2008

Author: notfragileonline from United States

Sorry! This movie is NOT biblically accurate! Most bible movies are not, and this is a fine example. I could site dozens of incidents, but let's just suffice it to say in the movie David threw 3 stones at Goliath until he hit him, in the bible it was one... the killing of the priests of Nob's location was all wrong in the movie... and dozens of other inaccuracies lace this otherwise good movie with sheer scriptural error.

Nevertheless, it is well produced and the realistic feel is very good. However, changing the story was enough for me to give it a "generous" three stars.

If you like this movie, I'd encourage you to read the original book (1& 2 Samuel, 1 Chronicles, 1 Kings). It's a much better (and true) story!

---

3 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
As others have said, this film is the worst in its class, 1 October 2006

Author: chrismcreynolds from United States

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.

---

0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
How did Richard Gere land this role?, 12 February 2007

Author: Avenging_Eagle from Texas

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

When I was a young boy, my parents would read stories out of the Bible to me and my brother over dinner. When I was about six, we arrived into the books of Samuel, and I listened in stunned wonder at stories of violence and sexuality, a warrior who was at the same time a poet, and a king who bowed before the living God. I exclaimed at one point "this would make for an awesome movie!" to which my father told me that they already tried it, and that it was one of the worst he'd seen. I asked who played David, and my mom told me that it was Richard Gere, and it wasn't until she showed me a picture of him that my hopes for seeing a good film based off of David's military campaigns, his artistic endeavors, and his evolution as a religious figure were pretty much dashed. All this when I was six-years-old.

It might be hard to understand for some, but this story has resonated with me for so long, and for such a dreadful movie to be made out of it offends me to the core. The storyline is mashed up in its chronology, and various stories have been changed, presumably to add excitement, although I can't see why having David steal Saul's sword instead of his spear would really be necessary other than for the screen writer responsible to prove that he was willing to change things up. It's not just big events that are described in great detail that undergo tampering, but little details that cause great problems for any production trying to adapt the Bible to film. For example, Samuel using seer stones, or the oddly multicultural bent to David's conversation with the Phillistine's king. It's necessary to add to what is given in the books of Samuel, if they were adapted word for word it would make for a confusing and episodic film, but that does not excuse such a bizarre attempt to ignore the things that Christians and Jews know about the nature of prophets and ancient Israelites. Not only is David confusingly modern in his admonitions to "follow your heart" but the prophets are ruthless blow-hards whose callousness is only matched by their desire for bloodshed, but never is it implied that their advice for war might be practical as opposed to sociopathic. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is nothing if not practical, yet he is personal at the same time. It's a hard concept to capture, but this movie is filled with difficult theological questions that are never answered. Writer Andrew Birkin hasn't learned his lesson either, he took the same dunder-head approach to his script for Luc Besson's THE MESSENGER But that is just what makes this a bad film about the Bible.

What makes it a bad film in general is the repulsively bad acting and the pitiful direction. This film was poorly cast in general, filled with Caucasian actors who would have been better replaced by actual Jews, but when filming in Europe as opposed to the actual region, it would seem director Bruce Beresford didn't give about authenticity. Richard Gere is the worst interpretation I've ever seen of David. He's worse than any of the Christian television movies, he's worse than Ivo Payer in David AND GOLIATH, and his cheerless, uncharismatic David remains representative of his acting at large. The attempts at grandeur, such as his return to Jerusalem, or his pain at the death of his beloved son Absalom fall flat as his in-and-out of accent performance lacks the personality that actors like Peter O'toole or Charleton Heston would easily imbue to such a role. Beresford's direction isn't much more lively. His camera is static for the first half of the movie, making the movie as lumberous as the old 1960's epics but without any of the charm or spectacle. The battle sequences are bad attempts to mimic the style of Kubrick's SPARTACUS or Welles' stunning battle at Sherwood in CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, but Beresford seems obsessed with rolling two wheeled carts down hills. Never mind the fact that the scenes are too short to leave an impact, the lack of intimacy with characters drains the life out of Saul's death and there's little of interest in David's duel with Goliath, which wasn't given adequate set up in the first place. The first half ploddingly tells the chase between Saul and David, but without any sense of excitement, the second half of the movie concerns itself more with the court intrigue (the brutal story of Tamar's rape), and that seems to have interested Beresford much more. He should have made only that half, and spared us the painful boredom of the first.

Then there's the casual nudity, which doesn't bother me, but having another woman rubbing Alice Krige down with Baby oil as opposed to simply showing her bathing is about as exploitative as you can get while still maintaining a pretense of actually justifying the nakedness. But that's something that might offend moral watch-dog groups, not me. What offends me is the bloated, pointless, badly written, even more poorly acted travesty of KING David, easily one of the worst big budget epics ever made, and certainly featuring the worst acting of them all. Richard Gere, go back to your hamsters boy, the God of Israel obviously has repudiated you.

---

0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
So, do you want a Bible story or a skin flick? In this case, you get BOTH!, 19 July 2006

Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Who was the audience for this film?! This is one case where I honestly wonder if the people associated with this film were either mentally imbalanced or using drugs! There is no other explanation for why you would make a Bible story come alive and infuse it with nudity! Think about it--die-hard Christians certainly won't come to the movie or would be offended by the nudity and Atheists are hardly the type people who frequent Bible-themed movies. And, Agnostics probably just won't care one way or the other. So, apart from the actors' friends and family, just who is the intended audience? Now I am NOT saying the story of David should have been sanitized--after all, murder and adultery are part of the Biblical account. You really can't talk about David without Bathsheba in this film,...but being that explicit?! The people making this film must have been out of their minds. The public apparently thought so, as this was one of Richard Gere's few box office flops.

---

1 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
To use the title of another movie, "Oh God!", 19 December 2004

Author: harden_my_heart from Australia

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.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history