Le roi David

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.

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.

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!

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.

I never quite understood why Richard Gere became the Hollywood superstar he did, and films like this don't really help. It's a standard production depicting the rise to the throne of Israel of David. We start just as God is getting a bit irked with the behaviour of King Saul (Edward Woodward) and the prophet Samuel (Denis Quilley) decides that the young David is to succeed. The King isn't so impressed with this and so sets about to ruin his would-be successor in the eyes of the army and the people. What now ensues takes us on some biblical adventures including that deadly slingshot moment and as it pitches father against son, an ascension to the throne and some tussles of his own with God - especially surrounding his relationship with Bathsheba (Alice Krige). As sword and sandal epics go, it's all rather ponderous with little by way of any notable acting going on and the soporifically dry adaptation from the Holy Bible isn't exactly setting the bush on fire either. If it serves to get folks to read the original stories from the Old Testament which are usually full of human skullduggery, naughtiness and corrupted souls then maybe it might serve a purpose, but otherwise it's an overlong television movie that looks like money has been spent on the costumes and locations, but that has little else to redeem it.