James Hitchcock 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

ma-cortes 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

macsandlin 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.

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.