In John Little's collection of Will Durant's essays entitles 'The Greatest Minds and Ideas of All Time', Durant describes David as:
'a fascinating brigand who made himself rich with robbery, usurped the throne of Saul, stole other men's wives, broke every commandment, and is honoured [falsely] by posterity as the pious author of the Psalms'
Is this view in line with modern academic consensus?
All of Durant's specific points are taken from, or can be inferred from, the Bible:
Robbery - David watches Nabal's sheep without being asked, demands payment, and plans to kill Nabal if he refuses (1 Samuel 25).
Usurped the throne of Saul - "usurped" argues it was illegitimate and the text says the opposite, but he definitely was anointed king during Saul's lifetime (1 Samuel 16:13).
Stealing wives - David ends up marrying Nabal's widow (1 Samuel 25:39), and demands Michal back after she'd married another (2 Samuel 3:13-16; note that Michal had previously been married to David - 1 Samuel 25:44).
Broke every commandment - An exaggeration, seeing that David found his parents a safe place to stay (1 Samuel 22:3) when Saul was seeking any possible means to find him. But he did break many commandments.
Since we don't have any non-Biblical sources on David, except for one inscription mentioning "the House of David" as rulers of Judah, any analysis of him needs to be founded in the text. The text's generally positive, presenting David's faults as sins but aberrations; note he immediately repents of trying to kill Nabal and thanks Abigail for stopping him (1 Samuel 25:32-33). However, Durant isn't the only author to read the text as papering over a bad man. I'm not aware of any academic consensus, though.
I would be very careful to trust Will Durant on anything of a substance. No one I know of uses him as a source. He wrote decades ago, and generally rejected most of the practices of modern history (as a discipline). Being a generalist who explicitly rejected specialization, he should not be viewed as an expert on much of anything.