Pablo de Tarso Online

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 attend a Bible college in NE and a friend of mine got a hold of this film and we watched it on the hall. This is my story.

From a film standpoint, I was drawn in by the acting (with the possible exception of Dinah), as well as by the story, mostly. For the most part, everything was good. I especially liked the fact that Bailey had a bearable role in this film, as opposed to his portrayal of Livio in the previous film Jesus. I was taken aback by several scenes' inclusion that had nothing to do with Paul (e.g. the execution of the guards, pretty much the entire 20 minutes where Paul was in the desert), but the film ultimately gets back to Paul.

From a historical view, I myself didn't notice anything wrong. However, the guys I was watching it with would often interrupt to say that something wasn't culturally accurate (most notably, the wrestling intro).

I interpreted the fictional character of Rueben as largely a personification of the same type of attitude that Saul had (hence their friendship and then enmity). My disbelief was suspended slightly when he was assigned to hunt down and kill Paul, but it's not an insurmountable obstacle.

The character of Dinah, to the best of my reasoning, was extrapolated out of the conflicting theories on whether or not Paul was married. However, she took on a much larger role. I didn't find her role as Rueben's unwitting informant very believable or necessary.

Also, consider yourselves warned: this film does contain brief nudity. Early in the film, Saul and Rueben are seen from behind, bathing. More notably, however, was the honeymoon scene. I recall my troupe watching it and one asking if Christians made this movie. We told him yes and he was disappointed that he wasn't going to see breasts. However, three seconds later, she took off her top and was seen topless for a considerable amount of time (by the way, this prompted a freak-out among the audience). Take that how you will.

Some have voiced disgust with the film as an adaption, claiming it leaves out important details, creates too many of its own, or replaces too many. I, myself, felt that the details left out were done so with good reason: they weren't relevant. I don't think that too many elements were invented as explained above in my analysis of Rueben and Dinah's characters. As for replacing elements (the most prominent example being Rome, not Mark, being the cause of Paul and Barnabas' split), I did notice them but wasn't too upset about them After all, Mark could very well have been a subtext of that conversation. However, introducing and developing him would take too much time (not that they didn't waste time on anything else...).

One final note: the film is fairly long. I knew that going into it and I still felt like it was longer than it actually was.

All-in-all, this was an enjoyable film. I would not recommend it if you have aversions to stylistic inaccuracies, nudity (unless you just skip over it), fictional characters sharing the screen with biblical ones, long movies, a few pointless scenes, or simply parts of the biblical narrative being *gasp* omitted. Still, if you can get past those things, you will enjoy this (I realized just now that I sound like I'm joking. Well, I'm not. It's a decent movie).

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.

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!!!

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!!!

Didn't expect much from this because I had heard it had some extra biblical content. I wasn't too bothered about that as all the other bible series movies had their extra scenes. It certainly wasn't terrible there was some pretty decent parts. It was well filmed and had great music. Acting was great.

I found they portrayed Saul/Paul as quite nice before he snapped. Suddenly he just went evil when not long before had not wanted to stone Stephen...I didn't like that as it just didn't make sense. Stephen's vision of heaven was erased completely!!! Also, no tongues when the Holy Spirit came to the apostles either! Paul does wrestle which I knew was in this by others reviews. Pretty stupid but none of these bible collection films (by Lube?) have been perfect.

Several characters not in the bible were in this and others were left out. That was disappointing. They focused heavily on this "Reuben" character set out to kill Paul. And his Christian wife named "Dinah" these two aren't even in the bible. I was wondering what happened to John as he vanished not too long into the film? It really wasn't necessary to show a woman's bare breasts to depict a sex scene. Disgusting having this in a biblical film Christians are going to see!!

Some parts were nice. I liked Peter a whole lot. He had this gentleman stubbornness and seemed so like PETER to me. I think the Damascus road scene was OK but he went blind, he didn't see people in a photoshop filter. I liked the journey scenes and most of the scenes after Paul received his sight.

I gave it a 6 as it could've been worse but I did like it to an extent.

Director Roger Young presents this dramatic television miniseries that recounts the life of Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ in St.Paul. It stars Johannes Brandrup in the title role together with Thomas Lockyer, Barbora Bobulova, Ennio Fantastichini and G.W. Bailey. This three hour made for television production comes from a script by Gareth Jones.

Originally known as Saul of Tarsus, he tortured and persecuted Christians until he experienced a vision of Jesus that forever changed his life.After experiencing a vision of Jesus,he changes his name to Paul and becomes one of the most effective messengers of His message.Converting to Christianity, Paul suffered persecution and imprisonment, but never stopped trying to spread the teachings of Christ.

Despite of the artistic license taken in the screenplay and some nude scenes,I still think that this is an excellent account of the story of Paul particularly in his conversion from the persecutors of Christians to becoming the primary messenger of Christ.This is a great story of conversion and it can inspire anyone to go into self-introspection and change one's life for the better.

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.

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.