Peter and Paul

My favorite Bible story, because it suits my generally humorous outlook, is when Peter is in prison (Acts 12).

James (well, one or the other) was executed and the nascent Church probably expected the same fate for Peter. So they pray for him. I don't know what they prayed but the best prayers are asking for God's will rather than for specifics based on our own selfishness.

An angel comes to Peter and unshackles him and opens doors for him and then, out in the street, the vanishes.

Peter goes to the house where they're praying for him and raps at the door. A servant named Rhoda goes to the door and asks who is there (after all, Herod Agrippa's poll numbers went up when he arrested Peter and executed James; it's possible someone's there to arrest them all). Peter identifies himself and rather than opening the door Rhoda, in her excitement, runs to the others, excitedly telling them Peter is there.

Their prayers interrupted they remind her Peter's in prison; though some of them suggest it's Peter's angel, whatever they mean by that. Though why an angel has to knock . . . ?

Visualize the scene: Peter's out in the street where Herod's cops can scoop him back up if he's spotted. A servant came who did not open the door. And the people who were praying for Peter are now, rather than going to see an answer to their prayers, debating angelology. And as Acts says, Peter continued to knock.

How does it end? No spoilers. You'll have to read it for yourself.

In "Peter and Paul" no angel is depicted (nor are Peter's shackles accurate). The people in the house aren't praying. Rhoda opens the door and slams it in Peter's face. Most of the tension and all of the humor is drained from scene. So is the angel, except obliquely. If one doesn't know the story one is left wondering why the prison door is open. Were Herod's guards that careless?

That's an ongoing problem with "Peter and Paul." The book of Acts is a cracking good story. Reducing it to Peter and Paul alone is a good idea, as the two had lots of tension between them. As Luke joins Paul in the book the disciples and other figures from the Gospel fritter away and it's all Paul and his companions.

The cast, though, is problematic. Robert Foxworth as Peter isn't terribly charismatic. Anthony Hopkins can be an acting powerhouses but he dials back his performance as Paul for the most part. Peter was (by tradition) a big, strong man while Paul was diminutive. Here, they're roughly the same height.

The big names are a mixed bag. Herbert Lom was an inspired choice for Barnabas as John Rhys-Davis was for Silas. Briefly-glimpsed Raymond Burr looks ridiculous as Herod Agrippa. Most of the guest stars are blink-and-you'll miss them.

One important point of contention in the early Church was whether gentiles had to become Jews to be Christian. That's aired in the series and Paul was on the nay side while Peter waffled. Voila, writers: tension. I'm not sure it's clear why that was so important people like Paul and Peter had arguments about it.

Some people think the Bible is a book of miracles. It isn't. It's mostly history with miracles centered on certain people. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible taking all the miracles out.

A few miracles are depicted (one being the question of how Paul and his colleagues survived all those stonings). The ones that are depicted are typically presented as ambiguous. Like the angel who freed Peter. But how does one depict an angel, anyway? Not as Roma Downey. Oh, well. I can't answer that one, either, but I don't write TV shows.

Sometimes not enough is said. At other times extra-Biblical reasons are given for things, like Mark's missionary defection, which caused the rift between Paul and Barnabas.

Nor do I see Paul, angry as he could get at times, as being so contentious as he begins to preach. It doesn't seem to be very winning. The best way to be a missionary is to build a bridge with one's newbies (as Paul did in Athens, though he didn't have a lot of success there; I was gratified the whole of Paul's text in Athens was given).

Overall, "Peter and Paul" is kind of dull and mostly humorless. In Church meetings the euphoria of new converts is lacking on people's faces (though to be fair when my conversion came I was depressed for a week before the euphoria of the Holy Spirit really settled in on me; the Spirit was willing but the flesh was weak). Only Silas seems to look happy at all. Very odd. Why follow a faith whose adherents are so dour? Meanwhile, the pagans seem to be having a high old time.

Still, it's good someone tried. It's just too bad the thrilling story of Acts comes off as a bit stodgy and, as in episodes like that of Peter in prison, leaving curious newcomers scratching their heads.

I'm disappointed this show as a whole isn't more fun. The book of Acts is a great ride. Sure, persecutions against those taking Christ's title (Christ-ians) continue with churchs and Christian schools being shot up in America and bombed abroad and we must take our past and present seriously. But that doesn't mean all the excitement should be drained from a great story or the euphoria of the Holy Spirit from our lives.

That's one character sorely lacking: someone once said the Acts of the Apostles should be called the Acts of the Holy Spirit. Christ is mentioned a lot but the Holy Spirit gets short shrift. Peter's one of the major figures in Acts and his name's on the series. Where's Pentecost?

This is a great movie. As with any Hollywood film it does glamorize and alter God's word to fit their perception. However, it is very representative of Paul and his encounters with Peter and the other apostles. It is for Christians as well as for NON-christians and yes it does portray Paul in a very accurate representation of his nature based upon the scriptures. As for as I'm concerned ... a great job was done on this film and it is being widely distributed as a study film.

I have never seen Anthony Hopkins act any better than he did in this film. A film worth owning and sharing with others. It gives a true picture of persecution and how Jesus Christ can change a life and use it if it is totally turned over to Him.

for a Christian, each religious movie is a challenge. not only for the common expectations font to a film but for essential fact than the story is part of him. so, the subject remains, always, extremely delicate. this case is a happy one. for respect of original story and precise-careful exploration of nuances, for credible image of Church birth, for a brilliant acting and wise music, for the feeling of a special film and for the courage to build a support for faith. it is not lesson, not speech. it is a fresco and a powerful touching definition of a religion basis. artistic values are only details of a thoroughly work , not easy, not comfortable. and that fact transforms it in an impressive result.

Without the contributions of Peter and Paul to the early Christian church it might very well have gone on to be an obscure offshoot of Judaism and Jesus might have died a lonely and forgotten death. This film, Peter and Paul, is based on their contributions in spreading the gospel.

Robert Foxworth is a rugged Peter, along the lines of Finlay Currie and Howard Keel previous portrayers of St. Peter, who also looks like a man who worked outdoors and with his hands. Anthony Hopkins is the scholarly Saul of Tarsus, rabbi who was charged with the apprehension and elimination of this Jewish sect worshiping a carpenter who allegedly rose from the dead.

To mark his change of mind about this group, Saul changed his name to Paul and his forcible conversion on the road to Damascus is shown here in detail. The bolt of lightning that knocked him off his ride and blinded him and his later restoration to sight changed him 180 degrees. He becomes their champion and their most eloquent spokesperson.

Paul before Peter took the commandment seriously about the new faith being universal. Others of the early Christians wanted to do the work of evangelizing strictly amongst the Jews. Peter was caught between a rock and a hard place on the issue.

Undaunted Paul goes out among all various and sundry folks spreading the word. His travels are recorded in the names of the various books of the New Testament, his letters of commission and instruction to the various churches he founded.

Whatever one's view of Christianity is, for better or worse Paul's probably the guy who did the most to spread it. That is indisputable. Anthony Hopkins combines the intellect with the personal magnetism that the man had to have in order to get as many folks as he did to listen and heed.

You will find some other good performances in Jose Ferrer as Rabbi Gamaliel teacher of Paul who thought that we ought to give the new followers of Jesus a hearing, Raymond Burr as Herod Aggripa, Jon Finch as a worldly St. Luke and John Rhys Davies and Herbert Lom as Paul's traveling companions Silas and Barnabas at different points of his life.

The direction is good, the script is literate without some of the banal lines associated with DeMille productions. Had this been done thirty years earlier, Peter and Paul would have had far more acclaim than it got. Still I think Christians will like it and nonbelievers will find it entertaining and factual in terms of the accounts in Scripture.

This is one of the best biblical movies I have seen. The fact it was made for TV makes it more remarkable, considering its' best competition was filmed for theatrical release.

As a Christian, I was a little wary of the approach Mr. Hopkins would give in his portrayal of one of the greatest men to have ever lived, the Apostle Paul. Hopkins gave a wonderful performance. His vision of Paul was entirely believable. Paul was supremely faithful, but wrestled with unforgiveness, illness, hardship, anger, etc. Mr. Hopkins' showcased the entire spectrum of Pauls' strenghts and weaknesses, without losing the strength of his immense faith in Christ.

I highly recommend this movie because it is well done, it is true to the Biblical accounts, and it is a moving account of the lives of Peter and Paul.