Good start, but then it gets ruined

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

I didn't love it. It felt slow and repetitive of themes. I loved the actors, Ian McShane is brilliant as always. Sebastian Stan plays a perfect in the closet gay man in his typical bad boy, brooding, damaged character. I didn't even make it to the last episode because it was too slow moving for me. I felt like the family dynamic was predictable and I could tell the relationships were not going to go well from the first couple episodes. I am not gonna lie, I watched this soley for Sebastian Stan. He could be taped eating cake and I would most likely watch it. Hes a great actor, but he got stuck being type casted into these particular roles.

in this whole series. Or there is, but he's almost completely ignored. This show needed less secularism, for one thing. I cant believe how many reviews this show got as positive. You go through every review before myself and only 3 of them will say they hated it. It looked great, it seemed to struggle to catch on, but... it was just bad. the source material was not there, they made up fake events, could've had a real Goliath...and Jonathan (or JACK)...was actually gay on the show, but he wasn't in the Bible, so...not even a little okay...that's not who he really was... i'm glad this didn't go very far... if you disagree with me, that's fine, but this is one of the few shows where i'll tell people how blatantly wrong they are. swear all you want, you're just wrong. and there's nothing you can do except try to explain back because it's the internet. however if you agree...please hold on to that...please...is there anyone sane left in the world, besides me... All in all, reasons why it was bad A. left the good source material, B. David was completely different C. Romeo and Juliet story added (for no good reason D. JONATHAN turned to be gay, just to knock for the secular audience. There's a reason the episodes of that one season were put out on Hulu after so many years, they don't do that with good shows. And E. They showed little faith in God-- only for certain things --and more faith in themselves, which was stupid because that's like in most movies, if this show gets rebooted i would't care what people say as long as it would just STICK TO THE source. Films now like Noah, so stupid just because the producers and directors and writers always are gonna try to apply more to the secular mindset. But i guess that's just the way the world is. Nothing left to do except to just warn people about it.

"Kings" is set in an alternate-reality version of today; that is, the societies depicted have technology, architecture, and fashion indistinguishable from modern Western nations, but the states themselves (Gilboa and Gath) are fictional. The storyline takes its basic shape from the Biblical story of the rise of King David, echoing many of the names and narrative functions of characters from the ancient text. This is not a retelling: it's a reuse of structure. However, I don't think anything was made of this potential."Kings" is a good-looking show: most of its elements, taken individually, are very competently executed. Sets, costumes, and photography are all lovely, and the performances are convincing and sincere. However, compared to its source material, "Kings" is astonishingly tame and bland. Fatally, when the character of the King is so very toned down, it's not clear what the point is. Even regarded on its own terms, the stakes seem so very small and soap-operaesque. The battle sequences in the pilot episode are a microcosm of this: ludicrous in their tiny scale and nonsensical action. Armies are represented by half-a-dozen guys per side, deployed a couple of hundred metres apart. Imagine a low-budget 1970s BBC historical drama, but with state-of-the-art visuals.The theme of leadership going bad and questions of holding and losing the mandate to rule are timeless and powerful. It's astonishing to me how little "Kings" managed to do with this.

While coming dangerously close to just echoing what I have already heard many times about Kings, I feel I can no longer not say anything. The NBC network show Kings, in my opinion, opens up the hope that there may be a bright future for the world of TV shows. It proves that a TV show can have passion, intelligence, originality and excellent casting and writing all at the same time, a concept that was all but alien to me until very recently. Now the real problem lies within getting a fan base for something like this. Too many people are content and/or prefer watching something on TV that won't force them to use the brain cells they do have, opting for something that they can fall asleep to after a long day's work. And yes, we all know there are a great many TV shows that excel at fulfilling that requirement. Now, while I will not begrudge the people that feel that they require nothing more from the television set every night, or even accept the fact that many cannot consume entertainment that demands a certain IQ level to watch, that still leaves me asking the question, what about us? For the longest time, I despised mainstream television because of this very reason. Now that something finally raises its head up above the countless carbon copies of simplicity and humdrum entertainment, promising a little something more, why is it that it is almost immediately knocked down? Is the intelligent public that small of a percentage? Well, I am one of the apparent few that appreciate something of this caliber. For those who feel that network television is a lost cause, Kings is perhaps one of the only, albeit probably short-lived hopes that there is a chance for something more. In ending, this show is highly recommended, and it's future is worth fighting for, if only to ensure there being at least one show on TV actually worth watching.