La Bible: David

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!

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.

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.

David has been described as "the most winsome figure in the Bible" and in the dictionary "winsome" means charming. Unfortunately there is little charm in the stiff and mannered performance by Nathaniel Parker as the adult David. Nor is the Saul of Jonathan Pryce any better. Slight and balding, Pryce lacks the physical presence to make a convincing Saul--first king of Israel and a character as tragic as David was charming.

However, among a mainly British cast there are a few standouts. Most memorable are the portrayal of Absalom the rebellious son by young Rowan, the portrayals of Abner and Joab-- generals to Kings David and Saul--and in a small role, the actor who played adviser to Absalom in the very late sequences--and took his own life knowing that when his excellent advice went unheeded, it sealed his and Absalom's doom.

As Samuel, Prophet in Israel, a bearded and heavily made-up Leonard Nimoy seemed more an East European **rebbe** of the late 19th century, folksy and unpretentious, than a character of 3,000 years ago. Yet this contrasted nicely at times with the stagey manner of the other lead players. Sheryl Lee--more dancer than actress--did her best as Bathsheba, the woman beautiful enough to make a man disobey God but her acting had little conviction nor did she look all that dazzling.

It is in the outdoor and crowd scenes that that cheap production values of this made-for- cable video become painfully evident. It was filmed in Morocco, actually a promising location for a Bible epic, but apparently rushed to production with little attention to realism or coaching of locally recruited extras.

"The Story of David" (1976) starring a young Timothy Bottoms in Part I and filmed in Israel did much more with as little or less. THAT David truly was winsome--and "ruddy" as the Book of Samuel describes the shepherd boy who became king.

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