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.

David is hands-down my favorite Biblical character (aside from JC himself, of Course). I never tire of reading and studying the events of his life -- the trials & perseverances, the agonies & ecstasies, the successes and failures (man, that sounds hokey, huh?).Well, 1985's "King David," starring Richard Gere in the titular role, essentially covers IT ALL. That's right, you'll see all the following events covered in the picture:-- Samuel's choosing of David as successor to King Saul -- Israel's battles with the Philistines -- The challenge of the hulk Goliath and David's victory with a sling shot -- David playing his harp to soothe Saul's torment -- Saul's increasing jealousy and hatred of David -- David & Jonathan's brotherly love -- David's wandering in the wilderness with his men, fleeing Saul -- David's stealing Saul's spear while he sleeps in a cave, sparing him -- Saul's suicide -- David dancing in his skivvies when the Ark is brought into Jerusalem -- Michal's love and, later, hatred of David (as he dances before the LORD) -- David secretly ogling hottie Bathsheba bathing from his palace roof and the ensuing adultery -- David's murder of Uriah (Bathsheba's husband) and Nathan's rebuke -- Amnon's rape of his half-sister Tamar -- Absalom's justified slaying of half-brother Amnon -- Absalom's stealing of the Israelite's hearts -- Absalom's death and David's grievingWHAT WORKS:-- The film is very worthwhile if you desire to see these numerous events depicted before your very eyes. -- The cast, sets, costumes, locations and filmmaking are all of the highest order for 1985. -- Edward Woodward is excellent as the jealous and bitter King Saul, even though he lacks Saul's heighth (as he was a whole head taller than any other Israelite). -- Most aspects of the David/Goliath challenge are great; for instance, the troops shown on two separate hills. -- Alice Krige is truly beautiful as Bathsheba. Along the same lines, the woman who plays Michal is very good and possesses a very unique beauty.WHAT DOESN'T WORK:-- Despite the numerous events covered in David's life, the film only runs 1 hour and 51 minutes before the closing credits. Let's face it, there's at least 3 hours of material here. Condensing it down to less than 2 hours prevents the viewer from being captivated by the myriad characters and events. The viewer is left struggling to connect with the people and their stories. -- Despite the numerous events flying by, the film has a bit of a lazy vibe. There's very little spectacle like "The Ten Commandments" or "Ben-Hur." -- David was a very passionate man -- a "man after God's own heart." Gere is fine for this role (the Bible explicitly states that David was a ruddy and handsome man) but he plays the character a bit overly righteous, pensive and noble, hence, David never fully comes alive to the viewer. Please notice I said "a bit" and "never FULLY comes alive." In other words, Gere is quite decent in the role. In fact, the failures may be the writers' fault. -- When the boy David takes on Goliath there's zero passion and righteous ferocity as is in the Biblical account (e.g. "Who is this uncircumcized Philistine who would defy the armies of the living God?!!"). Plus the film doesn't show the serious trash-talking that went back and forth between the two. The fight's just too low key.Although the gist of the story is accurate there are inaccuracies that some could nitpick, e.g. Goliath challenged David and the Israelites himself, he didn't speak through another man; David picked up stones before going out to fight the giant, not while fighting him; Absalom waited a long time before slaying Amnon, he didn't do it immediately; etc. Changes like these aren't that big of a deal and won't ruin your viewing experience unless you're completely [...] about it (sorry for my crudeness).One reviewer criticized the film for showing Bathsheba at fault for seducing David. Actually, they both share fault equally. Everyone in Jerusalem knew the king stayed home while the troops were out fighting, so Bathsheba was likely fully aware that the king could catch a real nice tantalizing glimpse of her while she was bathing. Besides, even though David was the king, she could have said 'no' when the proposition of adultery later presented itself. In other words, she was both into it and into David.FINAL ANALYSIS: I've seen "King David" 3 times now and enjoy it every time. It's a very worthwhile and well-done film account of David's life. Unfortunately the picture cuts off way more than it can chew in a mere 1 hour and 51 minutes, leaving the viewer detached from the characters and events, in particular those who know little about the biblical account.Don't listen to those who give this film an absurdly low rating. They're way off. It's good, it just lacks the oomph and detail to make it great.GRADE: B

M.De Mille ,you used to regale us with your "Samson and Delilah" or "ten commandments".They used to say your stories were not faithful to the Holy Writ.But who cares?Did the sultan care when Sheherazade was telling him endless stories which enthralled him?Bruce Beresford ditches the De Mille mold and opts for a serious reading (that's what the credits say)of the bible:it's a very tedious flick,which gives you the feeling that you are attending an interminable Sunday school lesson.The Lord is as intractable selfish and jealous as ever.The generally gloomy atmosphere -in spite of luminous landscapes- dampens any spirits,which is a shame in the case of a movie which should enlighten its audience.Of course we've got Goliath,Samuel,Nathan,and Bathsheba -who has barely five lines to say,whereas in Henry King's "David and Bathsheba" (1951),Susan Hayward got the lion's share.Richard Gere's wooden acting does not help.It's a boring movie.

For many years now this movie has remained my personal choice for Worst Movie Ever Made. Oh sure, others have come along to try to knock it off its pedestal, but KING DAVID remains, in that respect anyway, King of the Hill, A-Number One, Top Of The Heap. It's amazing to see so much money and talent poured into a fascinating, large-scale story of murder and betrayal and gods and scheming women and intrigue, only to result in a dreary stink-bomb of a flick that should forever stand as a cautionary lesson to those who would make a Sunday School story out of material that is, in the original, decidedly adult. The end result here is a movie that is embarrassingly awful even on fast-forward.