|
|
Rating:  - Some Orson Welles film should maybe be forgotten
When Orson Welles did not have anything to eat he had to become an actor in films that are hardly worth, at times, mentioning, and yet he tries to do what he can as an actor to save the film. That's typical in this one. The Bible is badly revisited in an episode that is not that particularly thrilling because too much known. The film more or less understands some political questions and sees in the attack of the Philistines against Israel an allusion to the menace against Israel from its Arab neighbors. But all that is naïve. The stone civilization against the metal civilization from the north as Solomon will put it later is hardly seen. A sling and a stone against spears and a sword. This symbolism is present but unexploited. That also means The Semites (and that is a lot more than just the Jews) against those from the North, those who speak the Indo-Iranian languages of Mesopotamia, of Babylon, of Persia. All that is missed, and a lot more. The harp is also present but not used to its tremendous meaning. The oldest harp we know in this region is Sumerian and not Israeli or whatever. Israeli music is derived from that Sumerian music of some fifteen centuries before, and it is David who is going to establish the music school of the Temple, of the Levites, and also ,the singing school that will produce the prosody and the psalmody of the Ancient Testament, two musical forms that are both the results of older traditions and the root of twenty centuries to come. Apart from that the film is naïve and primitive. I prefer the version given by Handel in his Saul.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
Rating:  - Not so good...
Poorly dubbed and hard to follow. The thing is I recognize some of these guys from other Biblical epics and they're dubbed with their own voices... but they STILL don't quite match. What's up with THAT?
Rating: - Decent, But Not an Epic.
Orson Welles gets the top billing in this 1960 movie adaptation of the classic Biblical story, but Welles doesn't portray either one of the title characters. Instead he portrays (and perhaps fittingly so) Saul, the first King of Israel who disobeyed God so many times and lived with a divided heart. In some ways, Welles' life as the wunderkind of cinema parallels that of the life of King Saul. Whatever the case, it is Welles' performance that makes this 1960s sword-and-sandal-epic-wannabe worth watching.
The story is based upon the Biblical story, but except for the names of the characters, the film strays a great deal from the Bible story. Everyone knows that David was a shepherd boy who slain the giant Goliath with a slingshot and some stones and David did sing and play songs for Saul to sooth his troubled spirit. With one or two other exceptions, though, that's about the only thing DAVID AND GOLIATH that's accurate with Biblical writings. For instance, though David had served Saul, he wasn't an emissary to the Philistines at the time he killed Goliath. In fact, when David killed Goliath, Saul didn't even have a recognition of who he was. Also, Saul didn't slay Abner (Abner was later slain by Joab in revenge for his brother's death) and neither did David give Goliath's sword to Saul; he gave it to the priest instead.
Despite these discrepancies, DAVID AND GOLIATH isn't too bad of a film. The acting is decent and includes some excellent performances from both Welles and Hilton Edwards as the prophet Samuel. Samuel supposedly was the only person in all of Israel that Saul feared and in the movie Edwards seems to be the only actor that Welles fears. The movie does a decent job at giving some characterization and back story to the famed giant Goliath as well as fleshing out the character of David a bit (he once loved a woman who died tragically).
Yet, even with all the positives that it has going for it, DAVID AND GOLIATH doesn't live up to being a Biblical epic or a true swords-and-sandals film. Some of the characters are just miscast, for instance Ivo Payer seems more like a Greek god rather than a shepherd boy and future great king of Israel. Also, the movie leads up to the climatic battle between the forces of Israel and the forces of Palestine, but when the battle finally erupts there really isn't much of a battle. I realize part of this is because of the film code, but the climatic scene of the movie should last longer and be more exciting than a bunch of horses running around and a few men seeming to have a fist fight with bendable weapons.
DAVID AND GOLIATH isn't a terrible movie. Fans of sword-and-sandal pieces might enjoy it because it is a different type of movie in that genre. People who enjoy Bible stories might enjoy it, though some will not like it at all because it so freely adapts the Bible and roves from the source material. I do highly recommend it for Welles' fans, though. He delivers a fine performance and though he shows signs of the behemoth he was to become, he also displays through his performance why he was one of the greatest American actors to grace a stage, screen, or studio.
Rating: - Not the most accurate film
The acting and imagery is very good, considering the year it was made. My only complaint is that it's not biblically correct. The David potrayed in this movie started out as someone who was bitter towards God because the woman David loved was struck dead by lightning. There were other events that were in complete contrary to the Bible, like David going into Jerusalem immediately after being annointed by Samuel and knocking off a guard, etc. I think Samuel quoted from Proverbs, too, which was not supposed to have been written yet, since Solomon wasn't even born yet at the time.
It's a good movie, but read the Bible if you want the real story.
Rating:  - VERY DULL! NEEDS TO BE REDEFINED IN A COMTEMPORARY GEORGE LUCAS OR RIDLEY SCOT ASPECT.
I found the sound quality to be very poor quality all through the film. The acting was like Charlie Chaplin in the 1920's. The cast except for Wells, was outrageously comical and not qualified in any form (in my opinion.) for this film. Goliath apeared more zomped then Arnold in the "Terminator".
I would say the entire movie is not even worthy of a full star but that of a half. if you are looking for a more professional cast with provocative, emotional, quintessential, present role, check out "King David", staring Richard Gear, 1985.
Above all, the film was not a good depiction in the time it came out or subject to all factual.
|
|