One Night with the King (2006) Reviews

• Too much Harlequin to little history

  pmmlis2006-11-06

  I went to see this film in hopes that it might be worth seeing. It was to the extent that it had a few good actors and ornate costumes. The problem was that there was so much focus on making it a romance. There is way to much of "Xerxes" bare (or scantily covered chest) and much too little of dramatic story, which is the main strength of the story of Haddasah (Esther). Most of the acting was mediocre and some big name stars got very little to work with. Portraying Greeks and the Jewish people of the time as "prodemocracy" is very much of a stretch. The story was muddled as was much of the history. There was very thin plotting and so many characters were introduced that one would have a hard time keeping track of them, or what purpose they served to the story.

• An exceptionally bad movie: Like a bad film school project!

  gross-122006-12-31

  I saw this when it was aired on TBN, and I'm glad I did not waste my money on a ticket. This is a 'B' movie trying to be more, but failing miserably. Maybe it was better in the theater, but I sincerely doubt it. Although this movie had promise, it appears that the filmmakers did not have sufficient grasp of the mechanics of film-making to produce an acceptable result. The dialog is stodgy and excessively verbose, and is not uniform. The acting is weak, and the characters were not well cast, especially the two lead roles of Esther and Xerxes. This is Esther remade as a harlequin romance, except there is no chemistry between Tiffany Dupont, who seems like an adolescent rather than a woman of presence, and Luke Goss, who seems especially unfit for the role of a Persian king. I could not believe in their romance. The score is nice, but mixed too loudly and therefore is distracting. John Noble almost saved the film, but was not given enough screen time. Although pretty, Tiffany Dupont lacks the confidence to win a beauty contest. The pace of the scenes alternates from a spastic and confused flurry of flashbacks in the beginning to grandiose and overdone and pretentious pomp that was not true to history. There are many unresolved dramatic subplots that do not enhance the storyline. In fact the main casualty of all this excess is the plot, which bears no resemblance to the biblical book of Esther. Frankly, it was hard for me to determine what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish. Of what benefit was the portrayal of Haman as trying to choke Queen Esther, when the bible tells the opposite story? I have not read the Tommy Tinney book, but this movie gave me no desire to explore it further. The idea that Xerxes has to physically stop a sword from hitting Esther is preposterous in light of the biblical account. It could never have happened. As a bible scholar I do not appreciate the departures from the plot from the bible story. Even worse is the propagandistic implication that the Greeks and the Jews were aligned in their love of democracy, which has nothing to do with the historical events. The dramatic scenes did not work, and the narration was excessive and detracted from the opportunity to tell the story. Cutaways were often poorly done and did not match the geometry of the scene. In fact, the picture has a remarkably flat or two-dimensional appearance for a picture that was shot on location in India. I don't think there was any clear concept of the space that the filmmakers were trying to portray. Frankly, I'm both disappointed and dismayed by the hype surrounding this movie that did not correspond with the truth about the movie. Are we American Christians so shallow that we desire neither a movie that is true to the bible nor true to history? It might have been excusable if the drama worked, or if the cinematography was believable. But the cameo by Peter O'Toole seems to have been included only to enable the filmmakers to misrepresent the film by using his name in such a way as to imply that he had a lead role, which left a bad taste in my mouth. As a high school or a college film school project this would have been OK, but it did not measure up to the standards of Cecil B. DeMille, despite the promotional statements to that effect. This film was a resounding disappointment.

• What a satisfying movie

  lukewolf42006-10-13

  At first I thought it was going to be a disaster. I was not impressed with Tiffany Dupont early on. She was more of a 21st century character than a woman of 2500 years ago. She seemed silly and frivolous, and her dialog was ludicrous -- but only in the first 10 minutes or so. She definitely matured and grew gracefully into the role of Queen Esther as the movie progressed -- and fortunately her dialog improved as well. I was very drawn into scenes that featured other actors from the beginning however. Each scene with Luke Goss was mesmerizing. He is a very charismatic actor and was perfectly cast as King Xerxes. I confess that I fell in love with this character and this actor. Another favorite was Tommy "Tiny" Lister, who stole scene after scene. There were some very funny, touching, and powerful scenes built around this mighty actor. What a wonderful performance. My next personal favorite was James Callis. He probably turned in the most stunning performance of all, and I truly think he deserves a best supporting Oscar for this captivating role. That won't happen of course. No way that secular Hollywood will endorse this movie or praise this movie in any way -- even though it's deserved. So far, at least 75% of the reviews that I've read from the "professional" critics dish this movie. I think their reviews are being filtered though their bias and intolerance. I'm a Christian, and I'm not a supporter or fan of Gen8x or TBN -- but they finally got a movie right. Really right. And I hope it's a huge success for them. I loved this movie. It has everything...a beautiful love story, humor, intrigue, great acting, noble characters, dastardly villains. Plus the locale, costumes, and music are magnificent. I'll go see it again...and again. I'm also going to buy the DVD as soon as it's released. I'll be thinking about this movie for some time to come. Doralynn

• should have been better

  littlekim-12006-11-09

  The sad thing about this movie is that the cast is SO great that you expect to have a great movie. But the plot is sketchy and disjointed, as are the transitions between scenes. The biggest problem as I see it is that with such a LARGE cast it does not really become clear until the movie is half over who is who. Jonothan Rhys-Davies is awesome as always, and there was not nearly enough Peter O'Toole for this fan. John Noble did a great job, and James Callis was terrific, wicked and relentless. Despite this, the movie had plot weaknesses, was confusing, pacing was too slow at times, the language was often flowery, and Luke Goss as Xerxes was just awful, his king dithering and weak. See it on cable, not really worth the money of a ticket. What a pity.

• The tale had potential, but it was not realized.

  randall22006-11-23

  This story had all the elements that should make a movie attractive... action, intrigue, romance, a little suspense... but it was wasted on this film. The production was uneven, hopping from one seemingly unrelated scene to another, many of them making our leading lady appear at best adolescent and at worst delusional. The music was not well chosen for the action, and the directing was obvious (thunder crashes as Esther delivers what was supposed to be a dramatic line). The acting was mostly disappointing, with fine performances by John Rhys-Davies, Omar Sharif and a few others, but pretty amateur efforts from the rest of the cast. In all, the only thing I really enjoyed were the period costumes.