People are voting emotionally.

A Disappointing Continuation

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

This would have been an OK if lightweight movie, if it had not claimed to be telling the Biblical story. The writers took a story that could have personal lessons and added a anachronistic civics lesson. Rather than being a story of a individual struggling with the life thrust upon her who is then faced with a leap of faith, we have an aspiring freedom fighter. Instead of a not too bright, debauched older king we have a "hottie" looking for love. Instead of a petty villain looking for self looking for power, we have a mad avenger. Oddly enough, the movie begins facing front on one of the more difficult commands of the Bible, the command that the Jews kill all residents of the Promised Land, including noncombatants down to the infants and unborn. It makes the threat of the same fate for the Jews living in Persia seem ironic at best.Forcing the story into the romance novel genre, creates problems. If not a rule, a guideline often followed in romances is that the heroine never has sex with anyone she doesn't love, but, if she does, she doesn't enjoy it. Hence the transformation of a king who probably killed his wife because she didn't desire to be ogled by a bunch of drunks to a romance novel hero.The political story (except for the line that the Greeks believed all men were created equal) might have worked if it had not been so alien to the original story.Perhaps someday someone with make a movie worthy of this story.

Our story begins with an explanation into the villain's history and hatred of the Jews, setting the scene for a tale of intrigue, adventure, and romance. Hadassah is a young Jewish girl raised by her guardian Mordecai in ancient Persia. Through fate and circumstance, she wins the love of a king with her wit and beauty, but must fight past many obstacles and enemies to survive wicked plots and save her people from certain destruction. Having seen One night with the king for the first time, it is with mixed feelings that I write this review. Though it could be said that the climax of the film is drawn out just a little too long, Esther's fear seems real and well-founded. Her whirlwind romance with the king seemed to unfold somewhat swiftly, as he falls in love with her only after two meetings, with emotions that are a little overdone for such a romantic scene. The fairytale is better than the history and a thoroughly enjoyable picture, indulging in lavish costumes and breath-taking scenery. Not an overly religious movie, but with the appropriately placed mentions concerning faith and theology. Esther is presented as intelligent, innocent and winsome, maturing quickly with her ascent as queen to a woman of deep courage and compassion. The character of Xerxes is compelling and captivating to watch, being a proud man torn by the tradition of his crown and the feelings of his heart, a choice that cost him his first queen. Kept alive with quick-witted humor and graced with notable cameos and performances by Peter O'Toole and John Rhys-Davies, One night with the king is not about faith alone, but the courage to do what is right, even acting against all tradition and customs.

I admit, I had a difficult time staying interested in the movie during the first 30 minutes. I was extremely disappointed with the lead actress portraying Esther. I found her character very immature and childish as well as her dialogue. At times, the dialogue was so out of touch with everyone else's. It was almost like putting a 21st century teenager in that time period and nothing changes but the clothes! I think if her dialogue had been a bit more mature and "culturally in context" to the time frame as the other actors seemed to be, this movie could have had more of an impact. I still rated this movie a 9 out of 10 because I felt all of the other actors were superb, especially Luke Goss, King Xerxes. I was so mesmerized by his performance as the King. I do not agree with any criticisms of his portrayal because ultimately I think he worked the best with what he was given. I do believe that if this movie had more "hype" months prior to the release, it would have done more favorably at the box office. I do not recall ever seeing a trailer on cable television or any talk shows talking about this biblical epic. Considering some fine actors were in the movie, I think this movie was sold short to the general public. It is an exceptional movie and my only criticism was of the lead actress, otherwise, a great addition to any epic collection.

Setting aside any concerns about the historical or Biblical accuracy of the movie, One Night With the King is just a lousy, poorly made movie. While the acting was mostly mediocre, the filming was worse. How much poorly-timed slow-motion can a movie contain? One Night had way too much, and was in general poorly filmed. As others have mentioned, there was little chemistry in the poorly-developed love story. The dialog was stilted and inconsistent, and the plot could be best described as mushy. I'm not exactly sure what was supposed to be happening, or why. Nor was there any emotional connection with the characters. I was glad when it was over.One positive was the costuming and scenery. Ester's costumes were lovely, although Xerxes' were somewhat terrible and everyone could have cut back on the eye makeup. The scenery captured a sense of the fantastic, with plenty of pillars, waterfalls, and lots and lots of flowing gauze. Odd cuts between scenes and strange shots didn't let these aspects live up to their potential.I don't oppose the idea of a family-friendly film, or the idea of a film based on the Bible. One Night, however, was too hard to follow and so painful to watch it's not worth the trouble.