Paul the Apostle

Rating:
Summary: Very inaccurate
Review: For those who will not take the time to read the Bible for themselves and rely solely on the preaching of others and movies for messages of God, this film will be very misleadly. The writers of this account portray Saul (Paul) as a compassionate Pharisee, lending a hand to the "decieved" followers of the Way. This inaccurate version also depicts the Apostle Peter as fearful instead of faithful, while this was true of him in the time between the death and resurrection of Christ, it was not the case after the Ascension when in the account of the Acts of the Apostles, Peter stood up in Act 2:14 boldly, not timidly, and proclaimed Christ. Also , alarming is the adding to the text done in the scene where God through Peter heals the crippled beggar. Read, if you will, the book of Acts 3:1-10, Peter never asks the beggar if he would like to recieve this healing, but apparently the writers of this movie are not satisfied with the drama as it is written.
There are better movies on work of God through His Apostles. This one, in my opinion, misses the mark. But of course the standard by which are things are to be judged is not our own subjective opinions, but the Word of God. I would suggest you read the Bible and, as in Pauls own words. 1 Thessalonians 5:21, "Test everything. Hold on to the good."

Rating:
Summary: in name only
Review: Despite crediting a long list of Biblical experts, this made for television film is astonishingly inaccurate, but is still perhaps worth a rental; just don't expect to know much about the Apostle Paul from it, other than some rudimentary facts like his persecution of the early Christians before he was blinded by the light, and became a believer in Jesus.
It has a fabulously attractive cast, and all do an admirable job in the acting department. The main characters are Saul/Paul (Johannes Brandrup), Reuben (Thomas Lockyer), and Barnabas (G.W. Bailey).

Directed by Roger Young, whose other religious TV film from 1999, "Jesus", I found really ghastly and blasphemous, in "Paul, the Apostle" the acting and writing are far superior, and it is not offensive in its treatment of the Lord.
Shot on location in Quarzazate, Morocco and Malta, the cinematography by Giovanni Galasso is excellent, and it has a lovely score by Carlo Siliotto. The interiors and costumes are also good, and give a feel for ancient times.
The DVD features no extras, and total running time is approximately 180 minutes.
This is "The Bible as entertainment", and has some sections where scripture is recited and make for a few inspiring moments, but mostly it's simply a TV sword and sandal movie, with above average production values, and a lot of handsome, skilled actors. Low expectations will increase enjoyment.


Rating:
Summary: Paul the Apostle: the Man and the Miniseries
Review: GoodTimes' miniseries PAUL THE APOSTLE recounts for us the story of Saul of Tarsus, the Jew from Turkey, persecutor-of-Christians-turned-believer and herald of Christ, and cross-cultural missionary to the Greco-Roman world.

The film breaks in at Jerusalem, around forty days after Jesus' resurrection. We see a Saul who at first shows sympathy toward persecuted Jesus-followers but, following `Pentecost' and the increasingly public proclamation made by its leaders, and compounded by pressure from a Sadducean priest named Ruben, he begins to have second thoughts and eventually changes his mind. We witness the stoning of Stephen, for which action Saul reluctantly accepts the killers' coats, and to which he does not appear to give hearty approval (despite Luke's statement to the contrary, if we take `Acts' as the source). When Saul becomes invigorated to stamp out the new Jewish sect, he proceeds on a written order from Herod (Acts has the high priest) to Damascus. His intention: to round up from the synagogues any such followers and take them back to Jerusalem as prisoners. As he approaches the city, a light knocks him off his horse, and Saul sees a very vague vision of Jesus, who tells him to go into the city and wait for further instructions. Ananias, after some prodding, visits and lays hands on Saul, who hurries off to be baptized. And on the heels of lengthy efforts to assuade the fears of believers both in Damascus and then Jerusalem, Saul (not long thereafter known as Paul) begins to gain their trust. The rest of the movie follows his communion with the early Christians, his evasion of Jewish and Roman authorities, and his missionary efforts to the wider world, for which he is rightly remembered as "the Apostle to the Gentiles."

The movie looks authentic in its culture - especially in clothing - and desert landscape (it was filmed in Morocco). With respect to the former, Ruben's wedding to Dina makes an exception (ceremony, followed by dancing, and then intercourse) to the normal matrimonial tradition: at the end of the betrothal period, the husband takes the wife past a procession of celebrating friends, carrying her into the house, to consummate the marriage immediately. The film's dialogue is in English, and unfortunately a few of the characters don't appear very ethnically Jewish (blue eyes, green eyes, light brown hair). The miniseries recreates many of the events described in the New Testament book of Acts. In addition to the aforementioned ones, we see the arrest of Peter (Acts 12), the Council at Jerusalem (15), Paul's famous speech to the Athenians (17), the plot to kill Paul (23), his defense before Agrippa and the appeal to Caesar Nero (26), the storm and shipwreck on Malta (27), and Paul's visit to Rome (28). While there is a lot there, we are still left wondering: Where is Luke, or Silas, or Apollos? The movie, early on, combines statements from different speeches (Acts 2, Acts 3) into a single sermon. Later, it takes various statements from Paul's epistles and weaves them together, often indiscriminately, sometimes putting them in speeches, sometimes in writing. The film does well at getting the `Gospel' right. What Peter and John here preach is more or less substantially what the earliest Christians proclaimed: that Jesus of Nazareth is the risen Messiah and the world's rightful Lord.

On the downside, acting and dialogue have turned out to be the miniseries' greatest weaknesses. Johannes Brandrup doesn't bring the intensity, the fervent ZEAL for the Law, that we would (and should) expect from the character of Saul. Ironically, Thomas Lockyer as Ruben is a much likelier picture of the historical Saul of Tarsus, emotionally and behaviorally. Saul tells us he is undeterred, and we see it ... a little. As a biographical picture, the film should have spent more of its first hour on showing us that zeal - Saul hunting down Christians - than so much of the other Christians' going about their way of life. Thus, when we finally get to the `conversion' experience, the transformation does not astound as it should. Nor do we truly sense any amazement on his part, that in all his zeal he had been quite wrong: the crucified Jesus of Nazareth was, after all, the Messiah. More than some of the acting seems frequently corny, cheesy, or contrived - with a few exceptions (the high priest, Herod). Equally poor is the screenplay, which possesses the same qualities, doesn't seem to know what to do with itself, and dances to various misconceptions of the popular level. From the perspective of history, certain persons, attitudes, and themes in this film have been implausibly rendered in a number of noteworthy cases.

First, Peter appears to us - prior to the Spirit's arrival at Pentecost - as a fearful and very uncertain disciple. He asks John, at one point, whether the `mission is dead'. Place this after Jesus' resurrection (as the movie does), and the whole thing appears extremely improbable. After careful examination, post-Easter appearances or `sightings' (the specifics do not involve our present purpose) rather than the incident during Pentecost, provide the most plausible explanation for the disciples' motive to preach in Jesus' name, given the content of the proclamation, as well as the mission and shape of the early church. Jesus' resurrection would not, if absolved of his vocation and the pretext under which he was crucified, prove that Jesus was divine. BUT, if Jesus had laid claim to the messianic title, and been crucified as a would-be `king of the Jews', resurrection would function as the sign that God had vindicated and installed him as the true Messiah. There should be very, very little doubt that such an event would have put the fire, so to speak, back into his disciples' hearts and lives.

Second, Paul's initial friendliness toward Christians seems to have been created out of whole cloth. There is no reason to suppose, biblically or historically, that Saul would have been favorably disposed toward Christians at any time prior to persecuting them. By his own admission, he was a Pharisee; from what we know of Pharisees we may say that Saul was of the Shammaite party. Placing him in a fuller context, this is what we have: Israel, perceiving her condition of captivity, desires national restoration. For Israel's god to do this, to free and prove her right, she must be found faithful, or she too would be swept away in the judgment befalling the surrounding nations. The `exile' must, then, continue until the nation repented and followed wholesale the prescriptions of the covenant (including especially Temple sacrifice and keeping Torah); when that happened, Israel's god would liberate her, and she would finally have the status and security promised her. With this at the forefront of their minds, at least some of the Shammaite Pharisees sought to make this come about - by whatever means necessary. Throw into such a community a local renegade sect that that brashly announced the exaltation of a man who spoke against the Temple and proposed serious modifications to Torah-observance ... and it becomes clear why a Pharisee, one such as Saul, would try to eradicate the group. By posing such an active threat (in his mind) to Israel's restoration - for which he and others were passionately and rigorously seeking - it was as though they were subverting Israel herself. Saul would not have dared to assist or consort with any Jesus-followers; they were apostates.

Third (this is more clarification than correction), it seems clear that second-Temple Judaism was a religion, not about attaining salvation through moral efforts - as an historically-uninformed reading of the New Testament has led many to believe - but about remaining the people of God, of staying within the covenant, of observing Torah, in order to find favor with Israel's god ... in hope (for many Jews) that he would at long last act and bring Israel out of exile and into her proper dignity, into a new world in which furthermore it would become perfectly clear that Israel's god was God. Thus, when Paul `converted', he was not abandoning Judaism to propound a new religion. Rather, Jesus' death and resurrection had become the means by which Israel's God would fulfill Judaism's ultimate goal: the redemption of his people and creation from the sin and death that had corrupted them.

Fourth, while Saul's former colleague Ruben may indeed have attempted to subdue the emerging Jesus-sect for teaching resurrection from the dead, he would not have been prone, as a Sadduccee, to pursue their destruction as a way of maintaining the sacred religious modus vivendi, Temple functions excepted. (Saul, as we have seen, would have worked to preserve Jewish religious identity on more covenantal and Torahic levels.) The occupational responsibility of the chief priests was often more civic than religious, as the Levites usually took most of the latter duties. The former, then, were more concerned with public order than with enforcing the priorities of Law and Covenant. That involved keeping a watchful eye on anyone preaching resurrection from the dead - which the Christians emphasized had begun with Jesus - because `resurrection' had notoriously served as motivation for faithful Jews to rise up and revolt against alien oppressors (here Rome) of the day.

Fifth, the director makes the unwitting mistake of casting Paul's vision of Jesus as a subjective experience, with no referent corresponding to objective reality. Paul claims to have seen the real Jesus, really there (despite the fact that Luke doesn't make it apparent in Acts): we may infer this from the way in which Paul places himself within a list of eyewitnesses to a resurrected Jesus in 1st Corinthians 15. Paul mentions seeing Jesus in other writings too, though perhaps. The former mistaken assumption - that Paul's vision was of purely subjective substance - has in scholarly areas tended to give way to some understanding that what Paul had seen was a spiritual or heavenly (i.e. non-physical) Jesus. This, in turn, has routinely led scholars to think that, since this was how Paul saw Jesus, the disciples' post-Easter experiences must have been the same. The conclusion finally drawn out of these moves, erroneously from start to finish, is that Jesus was not bodily raised.

Sixth, that the Roman military would have sought to have Paul killed (before AD 64) was not a feature of actual history. While Paul's gospel contained unmistakable counter-imperial overtones (if Jesus was Lord, then Caesar was not), the Romans themselves do not seem to have felt threatened by Paul's work or message, probably chiefly because he was not advocating open revolution, and emperor worship had not risen to levels of popular enforcement we have thirty to forty years afterward, in Domitian. Within Paul's time, the Romans had not yet figured out those unsettling political ramifications of the Christian Gospel. Rome's first official persecution of Christian comes in the 60s, when Nero blamed them for the capital city's great fire.

Seventh, during the second-Temple period the term `son of God' could function alternately as shorthand either for the people Israel, or for the Davidic king: the Messiah. Only decades later did it come to employ trinitarian usage. Thus, in the beginning at least, when Jesus' first followers declared that he was the `Son of God,' they meant that Jesus was Israel's Messiah, and that is precisely what listening Jews would have heard, as opposed to `Jesus is God' (though early Christians came to figure this out as well) or `Jesus is a second God.' Nor would any such audience, chief priests included, have accused them of blasphemy - a charge reserved for anyone who would openly slander, or announce to share anything that was solely attributed to, Israel's god. Sedition possibly, but not blasphemy.

Eighth, at one point we hear in the dialogue that the Sadducees don't believe in angels. Actually, the reference from Acts 23 to `angels' and `spirits,' (mentioned in such proximity to a disbelief in bodily resurrection) may refer instead to the intermediate state which, though following death, preceded the re-embodiment the majority of Jews expected for themselves, and to which revolutionaries especially looked forward.

Ninth - and last of all - late in the movie one character mentions the "end of the world": a term that requires some clarification. First-century Jews (and Christians, operating out of a Jewish framework) did not believe the "end of the world" was coming in the sense normally assumed by modern Western people. The current mainstream notion of God abandoning the physical world for a populated heavenly one, has in part as its origins certain Platonic categories espoused by later western theologians, such as Aquinas. When persons of Paul's time spoke of an `end' to the world they meant that history was nearing its intended climax, in which, as already mentioned - according to the classic and longstanding Jewish narrative - Israel's God would act to defeat the pagans and vindicate his true people, winning the decisive victory over evil and injustice, rebuilding the temple and attracting the Gentiles to Jerusalem to study Torah. We may call this the `Age to Come'. This was Israel's national hope, and it was for this that revolutionaries and would-be messiahs waged war on foreign oppressors and domestic traitors. Rome's effective failure to understand this hope, as well as Israel's steadfast determination not to lose sight of it, made the tiny Judean province exceedingly turbulent, troublesome.

Of all its fallacies and ambiguities, the historical ones will go most unnoticed by average viewers. Despite its sincerity and admiration for Paul and the Christianity of his day, PAUL THE APOSTLE fails to deliver what could have been a far more inspiring and splendid portraiture.

Sources include: N.T. Wright's "What Saint Paul Really Said," "The Challenge of Jesus," and "The Resurrection of the Son of God."

Rating:
Summary: Great Movie...BUT
Review: Having followed the Lux Vide Bible Collection series since the 90's, I was excited to hear of the release of The Apocalypse and Paul the Apostle in light of the success of the Passion of the Christ. We have hear an in-depth look(and dramatization) of the life of Paul before and after his conversion, as well as a brief look at the birth of the Church. You can't help but to love the quality, production, the acting, action, and suspense of Paul the Apostle, however...while I enjoyed watching the 3 hour production in it's entirety(rare...very rare), I was a little bit bugged by the extensive dramatizations and Biblical inaccuracies of the production, the fact that Paul didn't appear to age at all between his conversion and voyage to Rome(he was practically a young pretty boy from 33 A.D. to 60-ish A.D....come on now), and what really worked my nerves was the fact that, after 3 hours of this, the movie ends with Paul arriving at Rome...no Nero, no Coliseum, no burning of Rome,no martyrdom, or even a brief summary between the closing scene and ending credits. The ending alone was enough for me to give the film a 3...but at the same time, I consider it a good companion to the Passion of the Christ, much like the Apocalypse was.

Rating:
Summary: I recommend this movie.
Review: I am a Christian and I enjoyed watching this movie. I loved the script because it showed the way the apostles might have dealt with each other as they hashed out early church policy, and, considering it's imperfect FICTION, I didn't find anything contradictory to what I understand of the Bible. It's not suitable for an immature audience because of partial nudity and some violence and non-explicit sexuality. It wasn't gratuitous; we were given a picture of the times the church was born in. Even though there were a couple of times the sound didn't match the picture, and the special effects were practically non-existent, it was a beautiful-to-watch film, well directed and with a couple of great performances (Herod, Reuben, and Barnabas in particular.) To be honest, a couple of the performances were annoying, but I'm going to buy myself a copy of it, and I'm going to check out the other "The Bible Collection" movies, too.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting but doesnt stick to the Bible closely enough
Review: I enjoyed this film but kept wondering about the addition of characters (who are not mentioned in the Bible) as well as placement of some who are in the Bible (but not specifically mentioned as the film portrays them) for example, Barnabas and his wife being present at Stephen's stoning. It seemed to me that the Pharisee Reuben and his girlfriend/wife were given a great deal of emphasis in the film and I would have enjoyed seeing Paul/Barnabas together doing real missionary work. Paul's journies are barely mentioned and are cut short. In my opinion, the film also ends too abruptly. This movie might have been top notch if they had stuck to Biblical accounts rather than conjecture. Scripture is utilized occasionally but the choice of focusing upon peripheral fictional characters hinders this movie. However, the scene involving Paul's escape in a large basket was especially good. What a shame the film didnt stick to the original texts as the cast is good, scenery adequate and acting good enough. A man, who with God's help changed Christianity and spread it to all of us, deserves a fuller account on film. I recommend you rent this but recognize its many shortcomings.

Rating:
Summary: Biblically Inaccurate
Review: I was very anxious to view this film on the life of Paul the Apostle. However, after just a few minutes of viewing I shook my head in disbelief. This film strays greatly away from Biblical accuracy. If you are unfamiliar with the Bible you may still have problems with production quality. The Foley work and re-recording mixing are terrible and quite a few times when a scene makes a transition; there are digital artifacts which is distracting. Overall this film was a waste of time and a big waste of studio money while only fulfilling a contract.

Rating:
Summary: Fictional account of Paul
Review: It is unfortunate that film writers and directors think they can improve on a true story by adding a substantial amount of fictional material and changing some the events as they actually occurred. I am always hopeful when a new Bible or historical film comes out that it will combine biblical/historical accuracy with modern technology. This film had the technology, but strayed considerably from the biblical text and the historical events.

If you want to learn the real story of Paul, you should watch either "The Visual Bible" series on "Acts," which is word for word from the Bible, or watch the "Peter and Paul" film in which Anthony Hopkins plays Paul. Both of these films are considerably more accurate than "Paul, the Apostle."

Rating:
Summary: I'd Give It A ZERO
Review: There is absolutely nothing good to say about this movie! Zero! Nada! Nil! It is the worst Bible-inspired movie I have ever seen and I am so disgusted with it! Unfortunately I cannot return an open item so I guess I am stuck with this useless piece of junk for the rest of my life! But I can always throw it in the trash! What were the producers thinking when they made this movie? Which Bible did they base this Paul saga from? I'd give it a ZERO, but a "Zero star" wasn't an option!

Rating:
Summary: Another Bible Movie
Review: This is a fairly decent movie on the life of Paul. The acting is what one comes to expect from movies based on the Bible. I was intrigued by the subject. I don't remember any other movies based on Paul. I would say that the movie is half accurate. The movie fictionalizes Paul's early life to fill in the gaps left by the Bible. That which is in the Bible is condensed to where it is half accurate. Like I said, a typical Bible movie. I did like the way the movie tried to contrast Saul with Paul to show what a difference Jesus made in his life. They quoted a lot of his most popular passages as a voice over while he was traveling or preaching. It was a good way to fill "dead space". The most difficult part of watching this video was trying to figure out who all of the actors and actresses are. I spent more time saying "He looks like..." or "He sounds like..." than I did actually paying attention to the movie.