Also, consider yourselves warned: this film does contain brief nudity. I didn't find her role as Rueben's unwitting informant very believable or necessary. The character of Dinah, to the best of my reasoning, was extrapolated out of the conflicting theories on whether or not Paul was married. My disbelief was suspended slightly when he was assigned to hunt down and kill Paul, but it's not an insurmountable obstacle. 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). However, the guys I was watching it with would often interrupt to say that something wasn't culturally accurate (most notably, the wrestling intro). From a historical view, I myself didn't notice anything wrong. 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. I was taken aback by several scenes' inclusion that had nothing to do with Paul (e.g. 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. From a film standpoint, I was drawn in by the acting (with the possible exception of Dinah), as well as by the story, mostly. 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. I gave it a 6 as it could've been worse but I did like it to an extent. I liked the journey scenes and most of the scenes after Paul received his sight. I think the Damascus road scene was OK but he went blind, he didn't see people in a photoshop filter. He had this gentleman stubbornness and seemed so like PETER to me. Disgusting having this in a biblical film Christians are going to see!! Some parts were nice. 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. And his Christian wife named "Dinah" these two aren't even in the bible. They focused heavily on this "Reuben" character set out to kill Paul. Several characters not in the bible were in this and others were left out. Pretty stupid but none of these bible collection films (by Lube?) have been perfect. 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. 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. I found they portrayed Saul/Paul as quite nice before he snapped. It certainly wasn't terrible there was some pretty decent parts. I wasn't too bothered about that as all the other bible series movies had their extra scenes. ![]() A nice cast of actors and a decent story makes the movie Paul a pleasant surprise.ĭidn't expect much from this because I had heard it had some extra biblical content. ![]() While some of his teachings was showcased, the rest of his story was not covered. Paul's influence on the early church was the story most wanted to see. The movie introduces many interesting characters that disappear when you wish there was more. At times, the movie deals with the friendship between Paul and the Jewish Priest (Reuben). The movie ends before we get to see his trial before Rome's leaders. We never get to see Paul (Saul) growing up under Roman law and we never get to see Paul in Rome. Still, although the movie has its moments, the overall story has several "holes" and unanswered questions. Bailey does a terrific and believable job as Paul's closest friend. 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. It was nice to see Captain Harris from the Police Academy Series in a dramatic role for a change.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |