Customer Reviews

One Night with the King

5 star:		(162)
4 star:		(60)
3 star:		(28)
2 star:		(31)
1 star:		(40)

 

 

Before anything else, I must say that I've read the Biblical book of Esther but NOT the book "Haddassah" by Tommy Tenney and Mark Andrew Olsen on which this film is based. With that said, I'll treat this film as just another love story and not an interpretation of the Biblical story of Esther, which does vary from this film quite a bit.

The story revolves around Haddassah (Tiffany Dupont), the lovely, wholesome Jewish daughter of Mordecai (the always wonderful John Rhys-Davies), a scribe for King Xerxes (Luke Goss). Early in the film, Xerxes "removes" his queen from power through the meddling of Prince Admantha (John Noble) and Haman (wickedly fun James Callis), both of which have their own delusions of grandeur in mind. Soon after, Xerxes goes on a quest to find a new queen to replace is "removed" one. Women throughout all the kingdom are taken to the king's palace and treated to all the wonders and niceties one would expect from the King of Persia. Eventually Xerxes falls for Haddassah (who's changed her name to the less Jewish-sounding Esther, for protection). While the two are falling for each other, Admantha and Haman are both putting their own plans for taking the kingdom into motion. One of those plans involves the destruction of all Jews in the kingdom. With both men attempting to convince Xerxes of their own plans, Esther has to stop the destruction of her people. If you're familiar with the Bible's version of "Esther," you already know how this tale ends.

Were liberties taken with the story? Yes, many in fact. Does it destroy the story of Esther? Absolutely not. This is a very good film with a wonderful cast. Unlike others, I failed to see the poor acting of the performers in this movie. Dupont did an excellent job of portraying Esther as a kindhearted and very loving person. John Rhys-Davies was fun as Mordecai, both proud and protective. Callis was probably my favorite of the bunch, portraying the double-crossing and vengeful Haman with vigor. Tommy "Tiny" Lister played Hegai, the Royal Eunuch in a loving manner. I feel that he loved Esther like a sister as much as Xerxes loved her as a wife.

I found no problem with the sound quality. I understood every word very clearly. Secondly, the visuals, especially the CGI created palace, were wonderful. The colors in this film hearkened back to the days of the old technicolor bright, popping colors that have long faded from many memories.

Overall, I highly recommend this film as a wonderful love story. Are there better films out there that are Biblically based? You bet. But as far as love stories go, this is one of the best in the last ten years.

The first time I went to see this movie, I enjoyed it (despite the obvious production flaws), but I was thoroughly overwhelmed by all the history & all the strange names & all the multiple/twisty-turny plotlines & so I walked out of the theater feeling like I didn't really grasp everything that happened ...

So then I went home & read the entire book of Esther (it doesn't take very long -- it's a small book) & then went BACK to the theater & watched the movie AGAIN ...

BIG DIFFERENCE!

At that point, I was also able to identify all the "poetic license" that was taken with the book of Esther, but I do NOT think that it detracted from the overall message & profound truth of the Biblical story -- rather, I think that it ENHANCED it.

And now, after watching "One Night With The King," the book of Esther is very REAL to me -- like it NEVER has been before.

********

NOTE: IF YOU FOUND THIS REVIEW HELPFUL, THEN PLEASE GO & GIVE MY "THE LAST MIMZY" REVIEW A VOTE, BECAUSE IT IS CURRENTLY BEING SLAMMED BY FOLKS WHO THINK IT IS WRONG TO WRITE A MOVIE REVIEW FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE. AND, IF YOU'RE REALLY FEELING GENEROUS, THEN PLEASE ALSO VOTE FOR MY "DADDY'S LITTLE GIRLS," "UNACCOMPANIED MINORS," "APOCALYPTO" & "WE ARE MARSHALL" REVIEWS. (THINK OF IT AS A "RANDOM ACT OF KINDNESS" ;) THANK YOU! & LOTS OF HUGS & BLESSINGS TO ALL MY BROTHERS & SISTERS IN CHRIST <><

This will not be an in-depth review. There are plenty of those already. Let me just offer a brief opinion from the perspective of a bible teacher and secular historian.

First of all, this film is a cut above the typical 'Christian' attempt at Hollywood quality. The scenery of ancient Persia looks more Indian than Persian, but the computer effects are quite acceptable and remind one (remotely) of the Lord of the Rings genre. (Made no less obvious by the casting of two of the stars from those films.)

Having said that, the film is not up to the quality of 'Joseph', Moses', or other such movies done on a Hollywood budget. The sound quality is not top-notch, and many lines are inaudible. The acting is better than expected, including a worthy effort by Tiffany Dupont as Esther. The King Xerxes character seemed somewhat strained and lacking at times, and Peter O'Toole makes only a brief cameo.

The weakest aspect of the film is the anachronistic and too often silly reliance on the star of David theme which reduced the historical accuracy (and believability) of the movie. Also disappointing was the deflating conclusion of a story which gleans much of its suspense from the hanging of Haman. This movie deserved a much better ending.

As a historian, I enjoyed the references to Greek democracy, Gilgamesh of Sumer, and the imminent downfall of King Xerxes at the hands of the Greeks. As a Christian, I appreciated what the directors attempted to do--make a modern, interesting retelling of the Esther story. Understanding the limitations mentioned, and accepting the liberties taken with adding 'flesh' to the bones of the story, most Christians will be at least mildly pleased with this effort.

I had very low expectations of this film, and the film did not live up to them. How this film has garnered an average of 4 stars from Amazon viewers is beyond me. The producers, director, and presumably the writers of the novel on which this book is based have absolutely botched it. It's such a waste of a profound and beloved Biblical story.

My main complaint is that Esther's true character doesn't get a look in here. Tiffany Dupont is woefully miscast. A nasally American voice and a modern sensibility overwrite the gravity of her situation and Esther's unusual integrity and presence of mind. I couldn't help feeling like I was watching an incarnation of Disney's Princess Yasmin. She giggled like a schoolgirl throughout, and when brought to the harem along with all of half a dozen other beautiful virgins (seriously? That was all they could find? In all the provinces of the realm? It was a pretty big realm!) she spent a lot of time twirling under invisible showers of rose petals and not a lot of time contemplating her fate, which should have been pretty sobering. I do not think these are the qualities that impressed Hegai the King's eunuch, or led her to "win the favour of everyone who saw her". In short, she wasn't queen-like. What a waste of an opportunity to portray a dignified Jewish woman.

In the film, she meets Xerxes weeks before their official first meeting. It's love at first sight, obviously. He asks her to read to him, and she diverts from the text to tell a story about Jacob and Rachael, a story which probably would have been a dead give away to anyone remotely acquainted with Jewish history - not a smart move considering she's concealing her cultural identity. But Xerxes finds it charming and falls in love with her. Turns out he's a pretty sensitive guy. Their relationship is Hollywood standard complete with an emotional proposal of marriage, lots of talk about stars and jewels and plenty of tears and hugs. There's even a lover's spat in which Xerxes spots Esther walking through the "lover's gate" with the elderly Mordecai and assumes she's having an affair (what the...?!?). Rather than having her killed on the spot for infidelity and treason, Xerxes mopes around the palace for a days eating chocolates and watching romance movies (I presume). Unfortunately this entirely fictionalised episode overshadows the rest of the film, as the producers use the lovers' frustrations with each other to add drama to the rest of the story, which DOESN'T NEED IT. I'm not sure why any of these diversions from the true story are necessary. They undermine it.

The climax of the story is of course the moment when Esther risks her life by confronting Xerxes in the great hall. In the Biblical account, she puts on her royal robes and stands boldly in the entrance. Xerxes extends his gold scepter to her, thus sparing her life, and before she evens speaks, promises to grant anything she wishes, even up to half his kingdom. In other words, he's offering to let her share his reign. Of course she humbly invites him to a banquet and ultimately requests the salvation of the Jewish people, thus achieving immortality as one of the most heroic women, and one of the most heroic Jews, in history.

In the film, there are no Royal robes, and she actually runs through the rain in a beige dress, with no shoes on (?), and charges into the great hall looking like a (very pretty) drowned rat. Xerxes still thinks she's having an affair at this point, so he's none to pleased to see her, although at the last moment he relents and stops a nearby eunuch from beheading her with a scythe. Shortly thereafter she faints, which is just an insult and a shameful liberty to take with the story. The book of Esther remembers her as a courageous, articulate woman who was absolutely measured and determined in her approach. Xerxes virtually recognised her as an equal, so she must have been pretty self-possessed. I'm exasperated that the filmmakers have reduced her to a mere puddle of a woman - an hysterical Victorian sterotype.

Luke Goss makes a banal, if physically appropriate King Xerxes. A little too heavy on the eyeliner though, and I'm not sure it was necessary to be shirtless approximately half the time. I guess when the makeup artists spend so long slathering him in fake tan, it would be a shame not to show it off at every available opportunity. I suspect his teeth were bleached to glow-in-the-dark proportions for the same reason (ie., to emphasise the tan). He's not very authoritative, and not very interesting.

There were too many anachronisms and inaccuracies. Hegai had an unusually deep voice for a eunuch, and didn't appear suited to coordinating beauty treatments and accessories. Haman orates like Hitler and the film even appropriates a swastika for his own personal logo. Esther has a boyfriend prior to being drafted as a concubine. Coincidentally, he is recruited as a Eunuch in the palace, which makes for some unintentionally comic scenes as he pleads with her to run away with him (post-operatively).

John Rhys-Davis makes an excellent Mordecai - my only regret is that they didn't make enough room for him in what is essentially an insipid Hollywood love story. John Noble also put in a good performance. The props and sets were beautiful and seamless, and the costumes were exquisite. They must have made extensive use of CGI technology, but it wasn't obvious.

If you love the story of Esther, run - don't walk - away from this abysmal trainwreck of a movie. I can guarantee that the Biblical account alone is infinitely richer.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Hollywood should not be trusted with Biblical accounts.

Going in,I wanted to like this movie. Unfortunately, I just couldn't. There are the petty things, like the cheesy acting; there are the cultural things - I think they were operating out of a King Arthur framework rather than an Ancient Persian one; there are the petty things - the ways they changed the biblical story to better fit the movie plot (adding in a war, taking out the second banquet, the marital strife between the king and queen); there are the irritating ones - such as all sorts of back stories that added nothing to the plot and only complicated it; but it was at a deeper level that I lost it.

The story as written in the Bible would make a great movie as it is. It has grit, it has passion, it has intrigue, it has irony, it has beauty and pageantry (it has sex!). Often, what isn't said in the story is as important as what is said. But this move turns a great work of literature into just one more Christian Romance novel, a'la Brock and Bodie Thoene (and if you think they write great literature, then we need to have another conversation).

For some reason, Christian authors and move makers have no idea how to be subtle. How to trust the reader to pick up on the point without actually saying it. So they turn too quickly to moralizing, to explaining everything, to over-spiritualizing things. The book of Esther never even mentions God. But this movie throws God into the forefront, as if to say "LOOK! THIS IS ABOUT GOD! BET YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT, DID YOU? YEP! IT'S ABOUT GOD!" Good art asks good questions, and often points you in the right direction. Bad art throws the answer right in your face, as if you can't think for yourself.

So, yes, I was irritated by this move. Throw in a few obvious cultural faux pas, such as turning Haman into a Nazi, using the Star of David (a much more recent symbol) as a central plot device, and having a Jewish girl refer to God as Father (a NT addition), then do the opposite of the real story (Haman mocking Esther rather than actually fearing for his life) and I'm not sure I'd advise people see it. I don't want my kids confusing this sham for the real thing. And I certainly don't want people to confuse this for a "great" movie. It wasn't horrible, really. Just. . .not that good. Disappointing.

This movie strayed way too much from the original Bible story. If you are an unbeliever and never knew the story of Esther you would wind up very confused watching this! the character of Esther was a breezy and casual woman, when Israelite women in those times were very humble and meek having been broken by the tragedy they had witnessed after being taken into captivity. Although it briefly touches on her losing her parents, her overall attitude does not reflect any seriousness of what was historically going on at the time. It reflects the casualness and rebellion in this modern era. We were very disappointed.

While this film could appeal to some viewers looking for a family-oriented biblical story (and there ARE some very good ones out there) historians and scholars versed in the text will be irritated by the colorful Hollywood liberties injected into this film. The GCI shots and elaborate costumes are eye candy to the audience. But the sets look too modernized, almost robbing the film of its true origins--such as the décor in Xerxes' courtyard or the buffet scene where Hadassah secretly feeds her pork meat to a monkey.

These small details annoy me. The film writes in lesser-known details of the book of "Esther" but grossly overplays other parts. Xerxes' military campaign against Greece was never mentioned in "Esther" nor did Haman use democracy as a threat in his campaign against the Jews. His swastika bracelet could be disturbing and/or offending to some Jewish viewers. I assume the writers used it as a recognizable symbol of anti-Semitism for a modern day audience but I found it unnecessary. If you want a reference to Nazis then do a Holocaust film.

In a similar vein, Hadassah's sentimental crystal necklace certainly evokes beauty and sympathy for her secret identity but its use is severely misplaced in history. The Star of David, "Magen David", was not a recognized symbol of Judaism (or at least a registered trademark) until the 16th-17th century.

The actors were a mixture of mediocre and enjoyable. To quote the Hollywood Reporter, I found Luke Gross as Xerxes to be "indecisive as Hamlet". Why is he deemed one of the most powerful men on earth if he cannot agree on a war strategy or how to deal with his queen(s) without the consent of all of his princes?

Though Gross falls short, Tiffany Dupont's Hadassah is noble. She is not depicted as a traditional Disney maiden waiting to be rescued nor does she defiantly swing into battle like LOTR's Eowyn. Hadassah is trapped in a difficult circumstance of marrying the king while maintaining faith to her exiled people. Through her difficulties she shows courage, resourcefulness, and kindness. She is spiritually motivated (shown by her love for Jerusalem) and well-educated (I was touched when Hegai brought her books). John Rhys-Davies was wonderful as the scholarly and protective Mordechai.

My favorite biblical movies still remain with the classic epic "Ten Commandments" and newer animated "The Prince of Egypt". Both movies used big investments and film creativity but they did not upset the balance of a good story. TNT's underestimated "Joseph" is outstanding too because despite the sparse settings and simple costumes, it stayed rooted to the text and used a realistic cast to keep drama of the story well-paced. I hope other viewers will find some entertainment in "One Night with the King" but expand their interests further.

I did not get to see this movie when it first came out. I had seen the trailers and could not wait for the DVD release. I decided to pre order it only to be quite disheartened by some of the negative reviews. For anyone who is a little confused by them as much as I was let me set the record straight. If you are even considering buying the movie... BUY IT!

First of all the costumes are interesting and elegant. It is beautifully filmed (not low budget as implied by other reviewers) It is evident that this was a carefully thoughtout project, execellenly executed. It is so sad to see people tear this movie down. The very people who should be supporting it. It is only through our support that wholesome entertainment can thrive.

If you want a biblical account of the story of Esther then read your bible and study it! It is a movie for goodness sake. It is for entertainment. It is not a school of Theology. The story accurately follows the biblical account. Naturally it fills in the blanks where the bible does not go into detail.
These areas needed to be dipicted but do not change the meaning of the story in any way. Ofcourse the details are based on information of the people and of the time.

In short, it is a great movie!

How refreshing to see a movie without blood, without sex, without skin and without vulgar language! And what a suprise to go into the theater and discover a movie about Esther from the Bible. From the title, one would not think this was a story from the Bible. Although factual details from the story of Esther were not totally accurate, the story itself was full of romance, intrigue and suspense. The sets, costume, storyline and movie were a real treat! I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and am pre-ordering my copy now because this is one movie WORTH having in my library. Thank you!

Why did this movie with its several imperfections (actors not always clearly audible, directing not as good as it could have been) succeed so well and in so many ways?

Perhaps because it combined some identifiable winning ingredients (attractive actors, stunning visual effects, captivating plot) with others that are currently in very short supply (modesty, faithfulness, integrity, hope and biblical view of God), presented in a genre of history where the good actually won out against all odds. Maybe it was an accident that in its unsophisticated style it had something for every age group, rather than targeting one audience sector. Hhmm.

This is a movie that deserves to be a box office hit even without the professionalism one would have liked to see. Both Esther and the King are strikingly good looking, and yet are refreshingly unspoiled, and they hold our attention almost entirely on personal charisma (which in the case of the king starts rather weak but grows throughout the film). The computer animations were more than adequate, and even without what could have been done with this amazing piece of biblical history, it succeeded in captivating me. I'd definitely see it again, and I'm planning on buying the DVD for a gift.

I hope other movie makers take note of this one's surprising success and get on with creating other films that promote similar messages. I've had enough of the valueless variety that depends on sex, shock, and special effects.


Esther, probably only a teenager at the time she was chosen to be the King's second wife, risked her own life to save the lives of her countrymen simply because she believed she should, knew she could, and yet only had hope in her God for the victory that did, indeed, come about. (Pity the movie omitted to mention that she had asked all the Jews to fast with her for 3 days before she approached the King with her request).

Major movie makers should consider all these qualities, and pay attention to the biblical spirituality that permeated this movie. More of this genre could encounter a ready market amongst an audience that seems to be hungry for entertainment that offers real life stories with the same sense of purpose as One Night With The King.