Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Desertman84 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.

stitch-99 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).

exactcopies 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.

Jyotsna Paul 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!!!