MovieChat Forums > One Night with the King (2006) Discussion > Why is this hated despite its goodness?

Why is this hated despite its goodness?

posted 17 years ago by Abacore35
15 replies | jump to latest

note: I'm just curious to see both sides of the story.

When I saw this in the theater, I enjoyed the film itself. However, some people (especially certain Christians) condemned the film because it isn't "100%" when it comes to the bible. There were many attacks comparing it to films like "Da Vinci Code", etc.

I thought that the film was a very special rare film that you could take anyone too. Some of the good stuff in the media is given less attention; and this is one of them. I think some of the haters don't seem to realize that part of this is historical fiction and filling in details that may not be real, but could've happened.

Anyway, your thoughts?

Finding cures for A.S.S (Anti-Simpsons Syndrome)

[–] anna-koschka 17 years ago

You were lucky to see it in a theater! I didn't hear at all that this was out until I saw it at the movie rental place.

I think actually this is a case of a good movie fighting for recognition on TWO fronts. The non-christian media don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole because of its biblical basis, and no small number of nervous fundamentalist christians are wary of anything coming out of 'that immoral cesspool that is Hollywood' (paraphrasing here).

Personally I thought it was quite interesting and well worth watching; quite a decent lineup of very talented and well-respected actors (was not particularly impressed with the girl they had for Esther though) and some very eye-catching palace scenes (...if not particularly historically accurate). I wasn't at all bothered by the plot modifications and quite frankly I don't think anyone else ought to be either on religious grounds due to the fact that if anything, the movie was actually more visibly religious than the bible book itself (not once in the book of Esther is God's name mentioned, interestingly enough).

And before I get bashed for anything (being nonreligious, being inaccurate, etc), I may as well say that I'm a preacher's daughter and a christian, as well as having a degree in ancient history and planning on pursuing a Master's in Archaeology ;)

[–] rhondamonique 17 years ago

I too asked why people hated this movie. I saw this movie in the theater and absolutely LOVED it!! I also have the DVD and I watch it often. This film is very unique and beutiful!! I wish there were more movies like this. I really enjoyed the portrayal of King Xerxes by Luke Goss. I believe the high moral standard of this movie is something Hollywood just could not accept or want to promote. There was no immoral sex scenes, foul language and stupid violence. As you know sex sells!! Also this movie was not promoted that much. I only remember seeing it advertised a few times on television. Also this movie portrays ancient Persia which is now Iran in positive light. With tensions between the U.S. and Iran growing maybe this had something to do with film not being endorsed. I agree with you about the non christian not wanting to endorse it because of the biblical basis. This film was also sympathetic to the Jews who are still facing so much strife to this day. I think the producers had to add some extra parts to fill in to make the movie. The Book of Esther is a small book. I think overall the film was very respectful of the book of Esther. People just use the small historical inaccuracy as a reason to hate the film. I again just want to say this film was an inspiration to me and it is my favorite movies to watch.

[–] clansi-1 17 years ago

I was disappointed with this movie because of how much I enjoyed the book.

The book is written as the memoir of Esther as an old woman, and is really detailed.

Some of the coolest things of the book were left out, and other things substituted as always happens with adaptions.

[–] bamboopandacat 17 years ago

um.... yeah, maybe you read a morman version of esther because the book was written when she was entering her twenties as the most beautiful woman in all of persia.

i read the bibles esther, watched the bible on dvd's nlt version of esther and this movie as i own it, chapter by chapter, side by side and it follows it perfectly.

esther is, in the bible saposidly [at least in my own view] the description of the perfect girl you could ever date. a hard worker in her twenties that is awesome with kids and is always honest.

never, ever was she old in the bible---unless your bible was written to kill off the fun of the book.

i can't even imagine that, a 50 year old lady marrying xerxes because he is taken with her.

would have never happened.

never, ever, ever.

never ever.

ever.

they had the dude get drug through the street on the horse, they had the 70 foot gallows, they had xerxes and a beautiful esther.

that was the book right there.

plus they had those two back stories about how nazis came to pass and how that one guy plotted from the start to anihilate jewish people. gotta love it.

[–] ecastill05 16 years ago

I absolutely adored this movie. It allowed me to better relate to Ester as a real person who experienced these things and saved her entire people.

As a response to bamboopandacat, the "Morman" Bible your referring to (which I am going to assume you mean the "Mormon" one) is exactly the same as any typical protestant version. People of the LDS church read the King James version, which I believe was published in the 1600's, over 200 years before the religion was founded. Don't throw around insults at other religions just because you don't take the time to understand them.

[–] KenyaOne 16 years ago

"Rhondamonique" brings up two very salient points that everyone, including myself, seem to have missed...

1) In "One Night" the Persians are portrayed evenly but they are the supposed terrible enemy in today's Bush politics. This alone would put a stone in the film's path to success.

2) The Jewish people are also portrayed well in the film. But in today's world they are mostly criticised and blamed for everything. On the internet, Jews are made out to be "international bankers" when in real life they own/control less than a pittance of banks. When the muslim terrorists murder innocent Jewish children, the Jews are then blamed for defending themselves. Rhonda is right, it's not very popular to show the Jews in a fair light.

3) And sure, the film makers chose not to sex the film up when they easily could have. Another reason it wouldn't be popular amongst the biggest movie going audience, teen-aged boys. "Good Luck Chuck" was certainly a worse film but it had plenty of gratuitous nude girls to sell tickets. There are hundreds of worse films than this that have huge box office success. So I agree with "RM" that people are just looking for excuses to diss this film.

I've studied world history, the Bible, etc. I had no problem with the "liberties" taken with the story to make it entertaining.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheDuchessofM 16 years ago

I dislike it because it was bad. The same way non-blacks accuse blacks of watching anything that has a black cast in it because of the black cast, this movie is the case of Christians watching and praising this travesty of a movie because it's "Christian". If this movie was submitted to a film theory class it would be torn to shreds because it is the best example of how to make a bad movie. Everything to goes into creating a movie--or even a book--was not utilized properly and resulted in this piss-poor, patchworked mess marketed to Christians who are so legalistic, they want to keep everything "Christian" so as not to be "tempted by the world". :eyeroll:

[–] teacher_tom516 16 years ago

I don't necessarily dislike it like I dislike Pearl Harbor because this movie really wasn't as pretentious IMHO. It was a Walk To Remember type teeny romance version of the book of Esther so even if their Xerxes was a wimp compared to Rodrigo Santoro's Hollywood Xerxes and the original historical Xerxes I thought, it's a Christian fantasy movie for teenage girls so it's forgivable.

That being said, it could have been so much better. There were a lot of cringeworthy moments - the whole Nuremberg rally-Nazi connection of Haman, the handling of character growth, the under-utilization of the talents of Peter O'Toole and Omar Shariff (was this really the first time they were together since LAWRENCE OF ARABIA? They didn't even share the screen!!!), John Rhys-Davies (who I guess has to eat as well), and James Callis. Old Denethor (John Noble) showing up was rather a surprise though - I half expected him to call for Boromir during one of the feasts. The leads were pretty and pretty much in need of more acting lessons and a better script.

The Xerxes here was NOT the man who ordered the Hellespont flogged for its audacity. He was a wimp. That really ruined it for me.

"It is not enough to like a film. You must like it for the right reasons."
- Pierre Rissient

[–] hxnnxh 16 years ago

teacher_tom516 I've read your posts in a few of the other forums for this movie and didn't really think much of your opinion... but I do have to agree with something... As much as I think Luke Goss in this movie is to die for, you're right he was portrayed quite whimpy considering he was quite a hard king.

But I still loved the movie, I saw it for what it was.. it's a story about a young jewish girl who by destiny & fate became queen at a time her people needed her & she concurred in saving them. I think the scene's & costumes were beautiful, but there were cringe worthy moments, the chemistry between Xerxes & Esther was awkward & the script could have been better but I enjoyed the film because it gave me a visual of how it really could have been when it happened all those years ago.

I was raised in a Christian family & the story of Esther has always been my favorite since I was little & I found the movie portrayed it well. Who cares if they aren't A List actors... because of the christian aspect I think A List actors wouldn't have appreciated being in the movie as much as these not-so well known actors. I think Tiffany Dupont was well casted, despite some peoples opinions, She's a christian girl who I think was able to relate to how Esther was much more than some A-Lister.

All in all I love the movie, I only saw it recently & only found out about it a few weeks ago(it wasn't released in Australia.. had to buy it off ebay) & it's a movie I watch daily.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] red_rackham_77 16 years ago

I loved the story but I hated the way it was done, it made me say things like 'stop making it go slow in every scene!' or 'that is it?'. Some of the things that was done in it was just annoying and I think it should have had a differen director. It is based on the book by Tommy Tenney so it is not the biblical tale so have a little fun with it and stop turning it into a Christian-only film.

[–] browntable759 9 years ago

So I know this post is a billion years old and probably nobody cares anymore but anyway--I won't say I hated the film, but what kind of turned me off it was the cultural anachronisms. Esther and Jesse flirted like modern teenagers and so (as I remember; it's been a while since I've seen the film) did Esther and the king. Also, no Jew would have called God "Father." They considered (still consider?) Him the Father of the nation. I guess that pretty minor to most people, but I've grown up hearing in Sunday School about the culture(s) in Bible times, so from my point of view, it's a pretty glaring error. Also the whole dramatic star of David thing just seemed over the top and too Hollywood-ish.