La Bible: David

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.

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.

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!

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.

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