Davi

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!

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.

The stories of David, Samuel, and Saul are recorded in great detail in the books of Samuel, as well as additional information in the books of Chronicles. Considering the wealth of information and detail we have from the Biblical sources, there's not much need to go outside of the text to create a great movie. The most obvious climax of David's life comes early on in his life (his confrontation with Goliath), and the Biblical text in 1st Samuel reads just like an action movie. Had the filmmakers just stuck with the text, they would have hit a homerun. Instead, they bunted into foul territory... or struck out while messing themselves. Just a complete waste of what should have been a great scene. Very inaccurate to the Biblical story and very disappointing. I stopped watching after David took the throne as I couldn't deal with it any more.

This is coming from the perspective of a Christian that believes the Bible is the the inspired and infallible Word of God. If you do not hold to these beliefs, this may be a good movie for you (I can't say as I didn't finish it and my perspective is completely skewed). If you do, you will likely be disappointed like I was.

I find movies based on Scripture to be very touchy in general, and extremely difficult to translate to the screen without something coming across as inaccurate (or what we perceive as inaccurate). Even movies that supposedly stick word for word to the text still take artistic license (as you have to since you're translating the written word to a visual medium).

This one was overall NOT a good translation from the first half that I saw. I'm not going to point out the accurate parts as they were negated by the inaccuracies. Even from the beginning of the movie Saul was not taller than the other Israelites, which is clearly described in Scripture. I'll quit there, as there are a lot of other things I could point out.

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.