User reviews

Many writers of the modern Biblical movies take many liberties. In this one it portrayed the Apostles as as very flawed, angry, jealous but the women as pillars of compassion and common sense. In this one I simply became tired of Dinah's role--especially when the Bible does not portray this. Yes I know that incidences have to be written in for drama or effect but I'm not comfortable with attempts to be politically correct by changing the "character" of the characters. I recall a movie of Jesus which had his mother Mary instructing Jesus to be baptized by John the Baptist. I'm sorry but leave PC for the sitcoms and R rated movies.

The film is set after the death of Jesus, and because of this it makes interesting viewing as you see different angles of the religious situation at the time.

The acting and script is laboured at times, but there's a nice bit of female eye candy (Barbora Bobulova) to keep your attention.

It is shown in two 1hr30min parts. The first being the better of the two as a lot more goes on. The second part becomes a bit tedious, and the ending is disappointing.

It's certainly not "Jesus of Nazareth" standard but it's not a bad film, especially the first half.

I would recommend this film as an interesting follow on for a Jesus film that ends with his crucifixion.

It was nice to see Captain Harris from the Police Academy Series in a dramatic role for a change. Usually being the butt end of the joke, Bailey gets the opportunity to show his dramatic side in a supporting role as one of the early Christians. Bailey does a terrific and believable job as Paul's closest friend. Still, although the movie has its moments, the overall story has several "holes" and unanswered questions. We never get to see Paul (Saul) growing up under Roman law and we never get to see Paul in Rome. The movie ends before we get to see his trial before Rome's leaders. At times, the movie deals with the friendship between Paul and the Jewish Priest (Reuben). The movie introduces many interesting characters that disappear when you wish there was more. Paul's influence on the early church was the story most wanted to see. While some of his teachings was showcased, the rest of his story was not covered. A nice cast of actors and a decent story makes the movie Paul a pleasant surprise.

I totally think it was not the best movie to see for Saint Paul's life. But there is one reason to watch it over and over again. And the reason is Thomas Lockyer- Reuben if you like. Yes, I agree that he is a fictional character just like Dinah. But it's a very well performed one too. Thomas looks amazing and magnetic in this film, charming but psycho at the same time.Yes, his girlfriend is the best looking one in the whole bible series, but he deserved that! They are both fake characters but artistically speaking, they make the movie more interesting. And that's the reason there is the sex scene after the wedding. I agree it's not very biblical but useful to make more complete their characters and the situation more realistic. There are other mistakes too like Barnabas baptizing Saul by his own command or Saul being also interested in Dinah. Another well performed role was Barnaba's, who was a little funny too, again to make the movie more interested.I recommend the movie only if you are interested in performances(-and let's face it- Thomas Lockyer's will indemnify you)

I know this movie has a strong fictional basis, however, I have so enjoyed the movie and have watched it many, many times since I purchased it over 2 years ago. I thought the director Roger Young did a beautiful job and I loved the guy who played King Herod, it was truly an excellent cast, especially the actors who played Peter and Paul. I didn't give it a 10 because it wasn't as Biblically based as it should have been. Again, I have watched this movie many times and would recommend it to anyone, it is done so beautifully!!! Even though there are fictional characters that take up a considerable amount of the movie, the basis of this movie is very grounded in the The New Testament, again this is one of my favorite movies!!!

It purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they "separated" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.

Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.

Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.

The movie shows Barnabas "sprinkling" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.

Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.

No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have "known Jesus for a long time" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.

Why not just call the movie "Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture.

This movie didn't shy away from trying to be reasonable, what I mean is that it shows how people likely would've responded in the wake of Christ's death on the cross, it doesn't at any point get overly preachy...what I mean in simple terms...you don't get the sense in ANY WAY that Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron were involved in it. The "bad guys" mocked Jesus in more of a 2nd grader way, and it did a decent job to show Paul as Saul. It felt more like a historical movie more than a religious movie, hope that makes sense.

The acting was really good, minus Dinah. But it wasn't the actress fault, it was her character was like a chihuahua.

The movie was fairly long, but I could've gone for it being an extra 30 or so minutes even! I was very intrigued by everyone in it.

Before I end, I do need to say that yes, I'm aware it wasn't totally biblically accurate in EVERY sense, but it's a MOVIE. If you want a word for word bible retelling, there are plenty out there for you.

I don't often watch Bible-based movies, since they are usually boring and add extra characters. But "Paul" was pretty good. The dialogue was almost all from Scripture. It brought to life events and people who with the passage of time and rereading the Bible, have become misty and myth-like. This movie brought the events of Paul's life into reality. It stopped before he reached Rome, but Acts doesn't have too much to say about that period either.

The acting was acceptable, though i was struck by how white the actors' teeth were. I suspect that folks two thousand years ago didn't have much in the way of dentists.

This is a good movie. 10 out 10 is overrating it. But still it did have an okay story line. And it did have great acting. This a good bible movie. See it. I give 5 out of 10. No 10 out of 10 but good.

I am a prayer group leader in New Delhi. I was very excited when I bought this movie, and I was not too disappointed after watching it. It was a very enjoyable movie. My only disappointment was the nudity portrayed on Reuben's (the Saducee priest's) wedding night. I wanted to buy copies of this video and distribute it to my parishioners and priests as part of my ministry but those scenes are stopping me from doing this. We have enough nudity is the world anyway, why does Christian cinema also have to stoop to such levels? I pray and hope that we will see a new version soon without that portion.

On the whole, it was an interesting movie. The book of Acts of the Apostles seems so much more alive now. However, Saul sort of cools off after his conversion. His passion for the Lord does not come across very clearly. What I liked most was the portrayal of the persecution the early Church had to face. These days we are not (usually) stoned for preaching the Gospel. This movie has made me ask myself the question: What if I were to be stoned? Would I still preach? I loved the way verses from St. Paul's letters were introduced in the movie. Very powerful indeed! Watching this movie has helped me look at Pauline epistles with renewed respect. People have shed their blood to get what we have today.

The dialogues were excellent.

Good work Roger Young and others who made this movie possible!!!

New installment of the TV movie series about the Bible. Saul of Tarsus of Tarsus is a violent and relentless man until he converts to Christianity and takes the name Paul. Saint Paul biopic focusing their imprisonment , Christian persecution and other happenings . Biblical epic from the book of Acts a covering the conversion of Saul of Tarsus and his ministry to the Gentiles , now known as Paul (Johannes Brandrup) . Pursued by fellow Jew Reuben (Thomas Lockyer) , who wishes him dead, Paul takes the Gospel of Jesus throughout the known world to Rome . Semi-biography of Saul or Pablus of Tarso , generally regarded as one of the most important figures of the Apostolic Age, he founded several Christian communities in Asia Minor and Europe from the mid-40s to the mid-50s AD . Known as Saul the Butcher , the stoning of Stephen was said to have shattered Saul's faith in the Temple . Paul prior to his conversion, persecuted early Christians "beyond measure", as an anti-Christian he was in charge during the time, of their pursuit , more specifically Hellenised diaspora Jewish members who had returned to the area of Jerusalem . Paul's initial persecution of Christians probably was directed against these Greek-speaking "Hellenists" due to their anti-Temple attitude. Within the early Jewish Christian community, this also set them apart from the "Hebrews" and their continuing participation in the Temple cult . The church's greatest enemy became Christ's most prolific messenger. Where The Passion ends... the story of Paul begins.

Biblical epic from the book of Acts and Paul's epistles , well starred by Johannes Brandrup as Paul of Tarsus. Religious epic from the book of Acts and Paul's epistles covering the conversion of Saul of Tarsus and his ministry to the Gentiles now known as Paul. Pursued by fellow Jew Reuben, who wishes him dead, Paul takes the Gospel of Jesus throughout the known world to Rome. Johannes Brandrup. This is an acceptable film showing the painful life of Apostle Paulus when's imprisoned , as well as other deeds as the cruel pursuits of the unfortunate Christians , martyrdom of Saint Esteban and Saint Paul conversion. Dealing with various historical figures , such as Peter: Ennio Fantastichini, John: Giorgio Pasotti, Mary, Mother of Jesus: Daniela Poggi, Bernabé: G. W. Bailey, King Herod: Giovanni Lombardo Radice, Reuben: Thomas Lockyer and Ananias who returned Paulus his sight thanks to the miraculous intervention of God . The picture was compellingly directed by Roger Young. Roger is a good artisan, usually filming for TV and occassionally for big screen. He has shot various miniseries which have been a joy of his long career. He filmed several episodes of the prestigious Bible series, such as Jesus, Moses, Paulus of Tarso, Salomon, Barrabbas and Joseph. Rating 6.5/10. Better than average. Well worth seeing.

According to the New Testament book Acts of the Apostles, Paul was a Pharisee ; he participated in the persecution of early disciples of Jesus, possibly Hellenised diaspora Jews converted to Christianity, in the area of Jerusalem, prior to his conversion . In the narrative of Acts, Paul was traveling on the road from Jerusalem to Damascus on a mission to "arrest them and bring them back to Jerusalem" when the risen Christ appeared to him in a great bright light. He was struck blind, but after three days his sight was restored by Ananias of Damascus and Paul began to preach that Jesus of Nazareth was the Jewish messiah and the Son of God. Approximately half of the Acts of the Apostles deals with Paul's life and works. Fourteen of the 27 books in the New Testament have traditionally been attributed to Paul. Seven of the Pauline epistles are undisputed by scholars as being authentic, with varying degrees of argument about the remainder. Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is not asserted in the Epistle itself and was already doubted in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It was almost unquestioningly accepted from the 5th to the 16th centuries that Paul was the author of Hebrews , but that view is now almost universally rejected by scholars. The other six are believed by some scholars to have come from followers writing in his name, using material from Paul's surviving letters and letters written by him that no longer survive. Other scholars argue that the idea of a pseudonymous author for the disputed epistles raises many problems.

We start this movie with a Pharisee (Saul) and a Saducee (Reuben) wrestling, Greek style.

That's only the first of other apparent liberties the producers took with this movie. Peter is then represented as a doubting Thomas (after the Lord Jesus has risen from the dead and ascended into Heaven!) who just doesn't know how to go on with the "mission".

Pentecost is shown fairly accurately, except for the fact that no one rushes to see what the commotion is about, the apostles do not speak in tongues, and the movie just moves to a still doubting Peter, who decides on the spur of the moment to preach to some random Jews, out of whom he makes three converts vs the biblical account of more than 3,000. No one is baptized in the manner any Jew would expect (full immersion) from a proselyte.

Those were enough blatant inaccuracies for me to turn the movie off. After reading about the fictional Reuben and the unnecessary nudity in other reviews, I'm glad I did.

This is quite fascinating. We follow the man Saul, who as an authority figure persecutes the growing sect of these dangerous christians. And see him at last turn the 'the light'. as Saint Paul, he is a much revered person in Christianity, but this movie portrays him also before, not covering up in mushy mushy goodness that he did was he was supposed to, therefore making his eventual christianity more deer and costly to him and his friends.

Not paying attention to the opening credits as I was testing my new 42" plasma HDTV, I was torn between assuming that the lead actor portraying Paul was Richard Chamberlain or a look-alike. I settled for the latter but after looking at the other supporting actors, I changed my mind and decided it was Chamberlain after all beneath that beard. What threw me off? The actress who portrayed Dina. I could have sworn that was my favorite underrated actress Linda Purl. So while there were many Italians in the cast, the lead actors were English-speaking and Linda was there, so the lead must have been Chamberlain. But I was mistaken because not only was the actor who portrayed Paul looked like a Chamberlain doppelganger to me, but the Dina wasn't Linda Purl either.

Bailey, who portrayed Barnabas, is a staple supporting actor in many TV series and so for while he had me puzzled as to whether he was another impish doppleganger. He did a great job as a dedicated and slightly comedic disciple.

How about the actor who portrayed Agrippa, a King of the Herodian line who succeeded Antipas? He had a vague resemblance to Sean Connery but I thought "Naah! Couldn't be." Until I heard him speak with that distinctive Connery voice and lisp as well as that masked Scottish accent. Trouble is, the actor for Herod Agrippa is not in the IMDb cast line up at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Connery dubbed for that movie as a sideline though.

The photography, sets, costuming and location shots are great. I particularly liked that slow zooming shot of Apostle Paul as he was in a prison cell in Caesarea Philippi. For one thing, it didn't look like a cell at all but sort of like a garden architecture with what seemed to be a trellis roof covered with straw with beams of sunlight streaming through. Paul is shown writing and the actor's overdubbed voice is reciting that Apostle's lovely epistle on faith, hope and love.

I completely understand why the screen playwrights had to jumble the characters with roles exchanged (as the dialogue indicated) and added a few extra ones. That must have been for the sake of establishing a connecting storyline for all the events in the apostle's life, for brevity and continuity.

My only complaint is that some of the Roman soldiers were skinny and puny. The Roman infantry was the terror of the classical world and they were made up of wiry, sinewy tough men.

Above all, this movie was faithful in presenting some of the earliest doctrines and practices of the Church pushed forth by Paul and Peter.

Peter spoke of his experience seeing a pagan family imbued, filled with the Holy Spirit and exhibiting the charisms. He told the other disciples of his vision when God explained to him that Gentiles may be included in the community despite their non-Jewish customs "as what God hath made clean, thou shalt not call unclean."

There was the First Ecumenical Council at Jerusalem where it was decided that Gentile converts need not submit to Mosaic Law. Of course, James the bishop of Jerusalem who finally worded the encyclical enjoined converts to refrain from blood and the meat of strangled animals, but that too was later put aside thus entirely liberating the gentiles from kosher dietary laws. The film also showed that while Peter was the leader of the early Christians, he did not rule alone but always in unity with the rest of the apostles. Neither was he free from criticism as Paul called attention somewhat harshly to his off and on conformation to Mosaic Law depending on who were watching.

Christian baptism was shown to be done either by aspersion or by immersion. Paul himself was shown as having been baptized by aspersion as they were in the city of Damascus and far from the River Jordan.

Paul's personal suggestion for disciples not to marry to facilitate their mission was well covered too in a dialogue with Barnabas.

This is a movie that should be shown on the networks during Holy Week instead of the 10 Commandments which after all, is not really about Christianity per se but about Judaism.

Obviously they didn't follow the scripture or history. Jesus or Paul never turned their back on the law.

Johsnnes is brilliant actor, talanted and diverse Artist and story teller. Besides a good person to know.

A biopic of Saint Paul. Before he believed in Chirist's greatness, he used to find and kill people who followed Christ. Later, because of a spiritual experience, he got deeply transformed and became one of the greatest apostle of Christ and was one of the key persons to spread Christ's teaching beyond Jerusalem. St. Paul, St. Peter and few others were the key people who did the primary work of spreading Christ teachings.

He used to go from village to village on foot and talk about Christ with the power of Spirit behind him. Many chronically sick people used to get healed. He went to Rome where he was jailed for talking about Christ. While living in jail, he composed Epistles of Love, which is like the most beautiful poem on Selfless Love. It is now part of New Testament (Bible).

Because of his faith, surrender to His Guru (Christ), courage, inner strength, simplicity, and the Divine Spirit within him with which he spoke, he is one of the most inspiring Saints for me and this movie on him is one of my favourite movies.

This movie started out fairly well. Some artistic license, but fairly accurate bibically. Until "Reuben" strips Dina on their wedding bed and breast/nipple shows up on my TV screen! What is up with the nudity? This is not what I expected for a biblical film. What was the need? "Reuben" was not even in the biblical account, so you add a unknown character to the story, you marry him off the the prettiest girl in the show, you imply some sexual tension with "Paul" (he even said that if he wanted her he could have her), and you show her breasts!?! I quickly skipped forward on my DVD player and lo and behold, a dancing girl is now writhing around on my screen show off her backside!! Off went the video and I spent the next hour trying to find somewhere where I could vent my frustration! Roger Young and the rest of the cast and crew of this sham biblical account, SHAME ON YOU!! I would not recommend this movie to anyone EVER!!!

The final TNT Bible movie, starring Johannes Brandrup as Paul of Tarsus, is one of the better one. Yet I have two issues. 1) They added fictional characters. I don't mind if there is some dramatic licence (there always is). But to create an entire storyline with characters that didn't really happen that way, in this case Paul's main nemesis Reuben and Reuben's wife Dinah, who becomes a Christian, and then leads Reuben right to Paul? So far, these TNT bible movies have been more biblically accurate. I can deal with such things, such as fictional characters Jack and Rose on James Cameron's Titanic, but it just makes me wonder why they felt the need to create fictional characters. And 2) I'm glad they saw fit to add Barnabas (G.W. Bailey), but even in a two hour miniseries, they couldn't include Silas and Timothy? Not very accurate or complete guys! But for what they did show, including characters to the story who weren't really there in the bible, this was still quite good.