Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

The first must-see film of the year.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

This movie was overall OK to get an idea of David's life, but it deviates from the biblical account quite a lot. E.g. 1. the way David breaks the model of the temple in anger after Absalom's death is outrageous. Viewers may get the impression that David was a man of high temper. 2. the way he instructs Solomon his son to go with his heart instinct instead of the prophets' advice is totally contradictory to what we see in the bible. If you read the biblical account, David was a man who always consulted God before going into battle, and didn't take his own decisions without consulting God. I give a low rating due to these and other deviations.

This thing looks, sounds and feels like the Reader's Digest version of some lame, 1980s, network TV miniseries that's had most of the action scenes cut out and a couple of nude scenes put in. I don't know how much money they spent on it, but it looks very cheap and low budget compared to the biblical epics that preceded it and it can't hold a candle to the big screen spectacles that followed it. The direction is lifeless and at times awkward. The story is paper thing and provides no subtext to any of King David's life. It neither grounds itself in realism nor takes on the moral and ethical questions posed by the source material. The performances, as a whole, aren't so bad with Richard Gere being the only one who looks out of place. And that's true in just about every way. The rest of the cast has an accent. Gere doesn't. Yeah, it's THAT kind of motion picture. Besides being proof that Alice Krige is one of those women who did get better looking as she got older, this movie simply doesn't have enough to offer.If you're unfamiliar with the tale, Saul (Edward Woodward) was king of ancient Israel. He offended God and the prophet Samuel (Denis Quilley) anointed a shepherd boy named David (Ian Sears) to be the next leader of the Jews. David joins the army, slays Goliath and rises to be Israel's greatest general. Then Saul's jealously and resentment cause him to turn against David, who flees and spends years in exile. Only after Saul dies on the battlefield does David assume the throne. He falls in love with Bathsheba (Alice Krige), and gets her husband killed so he can have her. That causes the prophet Nathan (Nial Buggy) to tell David he shall pay for his sin, which he does by needing to have his rebellious son Absalom (Jean-Marc Barr) assassinated. David's plans to built a temple for the Ark of the Covenant go unfulfilled, but he does leave behind another son, Solomon, to be king.The best things about King David are the work of Woodward as Saul, Quilley in a small role and Samuel and Cherie Lunghi in an even smaller role as Saul's daughter. The rest of the production ranges from "eh" to "ugh", highlighted by Gere's infamous diaper dance. If you haven't heard about it, after Saul dies and David comes to Jerusalem with the Ark, he strips down to his underwear and boogies through the city. It is there in the Bible, but that's no excuse. You can't stick Richard Gere in what looks like a diaper and have him wildly gyrate around and expect people not to roll their eyes. It doesn't look ridiculous. It looks retarded. If they had to have that scene in the film, it was absolutely essential to somehow prepare the audience for it so their reaction wouldn't be "WTF?" That didn't happen and so it's hard not to burst out laughing when Gere starts shaking him moneymaker.David was a warrior king, yet there's little warfare on display here. If you're not going to do that, it become essentially to give some depth to the political and religious conflict both between Saul and David and between the kings of Israel and the prophets. That doesn't happen either. This is a very shallow and superficial recitation of Biblical stories without any elaboration or context. This wasn't a movie made for adults, but nude scenes with Krige and Lunghi keep it from being for kids or the whole family.Bruce Beresford's direction is unimaginative except where it's inexplicable. There are too many times when he has the camera in the exact wrong place or the exact wrong distance and his staging possesses neither naturalism nor grandeur. Combine with the obviously limited budget, King David is the most visually boring religious movie I've ever seen.But here's the thing. King David isn't so bad that you can fun mocking it. It's just limp and flat and without any ambition. Don't bother with it.

The only defense anyone can claim for this project is that it was the first contemporary Biblical film using US actors and contriving to appeal to the broadest possible range (to sell tickets to). That is the only reason I can see for the awful hacks made to the authentic story that has since been done at least once with a far superior script and production in the mid 90s. It was produced with lessor known actors and the focus was instead on authenticity and I have no doubt in the end that far more people have paid to see the latter film in the theater or through video sales. I don't recall if it is called "King David" in the main title or simply "David" with a secondary title more specifically indicating the Biblical story.I bought this film some time in the late 80s, when it was the only video I could find related to any Biblical story, other than "The Ten Commandments" and "Jesus of Nazareth" both of which are truly excellent films. Now that I have the newer version of David, I can't see any reason to take up any more shelf space, even though I already wasted my money on it and time watching it. That is how bad it is. I would feel guilty in playing it now that at least one far superior version in available the fate of this video will be that it is the sole video I have ever thrown in the garbage after determining it a liability with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

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.