in name onlyDespite 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...
not like the Bible Collection in accuracy at all!this video is nothing more than artistic license with the Scriptures. My family was amazed at how many points we found in the Scriptures that were DIFFERENT than what was said or acted out in this film. We REALLY enjoy other parts of the Bible Collection films, such as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, and Esther. BUT THIS ONE doesn't deserve to be named off with the B.C. set (nor the Sampson one). If you want to see some common yet erroneous doctrines presented, then this film won't bother you. The only part that was continously Biblical was the tension between the political religious parties. All else was corrupted and shoved together incorrectly. Finally, the "artistic license" taken where you see Saul/Paul go from being a wrestler, to the full naked backside of the characters, to a single nude breast of a woman later as her and hubby go to consumate, and the buttocks hanging out of a few others along the way....well, it was embarassing to see such...
DisappointingI had high hopes for this film, but was soon disappointed. First, I think it's important to know that THIS IS NOT A FAMILY FILM. There are three scenes with gratuitous nudity (derrieres, breasts, etc) and sexual content (a sex scene and a nearly nude Nubian dancer). What kind of content is that to put into a religiously themed film?
Second, I had many difficulties with the "artistic license" used by the screen writer(s). Much of this film's contents is not in the Bible at all, much less mentioned in the extra-Biblical knowledge we have about Paul. Needless to say, this film should NOT be used as a teaching aide any more than the film "Pearl Harbor."
Third, the truly dramatic moments in Paul's life were handled very poorly. For example, the scene on the Road to Damascus could have been awsome -- if the movie had a better screen writer/director/actor ... and on and on and on. Instead, the writers and director seemed more interested in adding things folks who...
Click to Editorial Reviews
