Saint Paul (2000)

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.

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).

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.

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!!!