San Paolo

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.

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 don't often watch Bible-based movies, since they are usually boring and add extra characters. But "Paul" was pretty good. The dialogue was almost all from Scripture. It brought to life events and people who with the passage of time and rereading the Bible, have become misty and myth-like. This movie brought the events of Paul's life into reality. It stopped before he reached Rome, but Acts doesn't have too much to say about that period either.

The acting was acceptable, though i was struck by how white the actors' teeth were. I suspect that folks two thousand years ago didn't have much in the way of dentists.

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)

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.