La bibbia: David

Since I, a minister, like to see the Biblical accounts enacted, I like this movie. Though the setting is Israel, Morocco passed for the Jewish country. There was plenty of action and very good acting. I liked Leonard Nimoy as the prophet Samuel, quite a change from his role as Star Trek's Dr. Spock. Jonathan Pryce was mean and evil, as was King Saul himself; but, unlike the real Saul, Pryce was not nearly as tall and heavy. Nathaniel Parker portrayed Israel's monarch almost flawlessly. And Sheryl Lee acted well the part of the tempting Bathsheba. The time setting was correct in this movie, going all the way from Saul's rejection of king (which led Samuel to go to the home of David's father Jesse) to David's being anointed as king, then to the end when God said the young boy Solomon would be the one to whom the temple would go. People may have wondered where David was during the strife taking place in his household, but the Bible does not indicate this. As a basic rule I was pleased with this TV movie about one of the most well-known characters in the Bible

Attractive actors, realistic speech, The Words of David (on occasion) and good production values make this is an exceptional entertainment. If you know very little about David, this film helps bring his life into more into focus.

A flawed man who still found favor with God. I recommend this film for anyone interested in furthering their understanding of early Old Testament men/women.

I had forgotten David had so many "wives". I also found David's dancing in the front of the covenant very realistic. It was a dance of real joy in the film and not one of "madness" as some have suggested. I thought to myself watching this film....yes that makes more sense now.

The actor who played Absalom is quite good and his part of this David portrayal is riveting.

As a result of watching this film, I will seek out more of TNT's film series. Well Done!

One of my pet peeves about Biblical movies is the way it usually gets hammed up by poor actors; everyone snooting around with Oxford Thespian Society accents. So Nimoy's portrayal of Samuel was a welcomed treat. Pryce does a good job of portraying a king being menaced with jealousy and madness BUT and this is a big one, he does not even remotely resemble the king described in scripture. Also, David NEVER expressed any contempt towards King Saul and revered him as God's anointed one. So all those scenes of palace intrigue with David and Saul gritting spitefully at each other are completely wrong. The longer I watched this movie, the more scriptural errors I found. Why is it so hard to make a Biblical movie that's true to both scripture and human nature. Why do they all have to be either over-acted and poorly produced or well-produced erroneous versions of scripture? Scripture tells some pretty compelling stories and if filmmakers were to stick to the scriptural account and cast great actors, they would have the easiest time making the best movies ever.

a king. and his reign. his fights. his victories. his sins. Nathaniel Parker does a decent job. but , in many scenes, it is not enough. because the case of David is more delicate than the situation of another personalities presented in Holy Scripture. he is alive. the informations are many and complete. his virtues and his errors are not field for innovations for scriptwriter. he has a clear portrait and, for the Christian or Jew, it is the only portrait possible. the film make the error to seems be an improvisation. its David is only a drawing. an exercise, an essay about one of the most important heroes of Israel. pieces who imagine a puzzle. result - a nice film who not use the Bible as source but only for inspiration. and that is, in that case, a great error because the story seems be fake or only pretext for costumes.

not a film about David. only a form of sketch who remembers a story who seems be, in this case, too profound for to be subject of movie. a movie " ad usum delphini ", who use Bible text for recreate a period. and if the plot is not extraordinary, the cast can impress more for actors name than for acting. Leonard Nimoy does a good work but Jonathan Pryce seems be lost in middle of his Saul, Franco Nero has only good intentions.the basic problem, David is, for reader of Holly Book , an alive warrior,powerful, in error, strong believer, vulnerable and wise. in this case, he is only a silhouette. a poster. sure, it is an ordinary sin for religious films and , if you are really honest, it is difficult to criticism that. but the need for a more realistic image of this extraordinary story remains.