Director Roger Young (JOSEPH AND JESUS) presents this dramatic television miniseries that recounts the life of Paul (Johannes Brandrup) the Apostle of Jesus Christ. Originally known as Paul of Tarsus, Paul tortured and per... more »secuted Christians until he experienced a vision of Jesus that forever changed his life. After converting to Christianity, Paul suffered persecution and imprisonment, but never stopped trying to spread the teachings of Christ. Notably, this program was shot on location in the Moroccan desert.« less
Fredrick L. Murphy | northeastern Ohio, USA | 09/04/2006
(1 out of 5 stars)
"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 unholy material guized under a holy subject and Biblical atmosphere. Simply put, the story of Saul/Paul was "hollywood-ized" in this film....great liberty was taken, inappropriately. Don't buy if you want Biblical."
In name only
Alejandra Vernon | Long Beach, California | 09/25/2004
(4 out of 5 stars)
"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.
"
Disappointing
Suzanne | Florida | 04/27/2006
(1 out of 5 stars)
"I 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 watch these kinds of films don't want to see: sex, gratuitous nudity and unscriptural events."
I recommend this movie.
Amanda | Bellevue, WA | 12/21/2004
(5 out of 5 stars)
"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."
Vulgar Representation of the Apostle Paul's Ministry
Save | 02/21/2005
(1 out of 5 stars)
"Right off the bat, the movie made me relieved that the kids were not in the room. After a diapered Paul and fictional buddy, Reuben, finished wrestling before a chanting crowd, they hit the showers and managed to reveal their backsides. For a Bible story, this wasn't exactly starting out very well. I thought that it's gotta get better, but I ended up enduring poor acting, audio that didn't match the video at times, poor "special effects", and above all a story line that seemed to view the Bible as a silent advisor (emphasis on "silent"). I was coming to the realization that this movie was excruciatingly bad. The pivotal moment of overload came at the marital consumation scene of the fictional character, Reuben, and his Christian wife (whom we kind-of liked, even though she was a rather weak character). Yes, there was a sex scene (think R-rating) in this movie and, though I was pretty offended, I am sure I wasn't half as offended as Paul would be. From what I understand there is another version of this movie with this scene removed, but I'm not sure how one might distinguish between the two versions.
Pivotal miracles showing the character of Jesus and God the Father were omitted, leaving the Christians to look like a blubbering people looking for a cause and significance, but ultimately placing their hopes and faith in something with no power. If this film was intended to show the depth of transformation in Paul, and the faithfulness and love of God, it sorely missed the mark. It was wholly contrary to the character of Jesus Christ: Godliness, truth, and purity. Don't bother seeing it."