The Visual Bible: Acts

The Visual Bible: Acts was made as a follow-up to their adaptation of Matthew. I suspect this movie was made since Acts is rarely adapted into film.

As much as I love the worthwhile films about Jesus and Moses, I also really love it when a movie is made about the other stories in The Bible. One of my Top 10 favorite Biblical movies is The Bible: In The Beginning. I also love ones like Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie and King David.

The Visual Bible: Acts is another great "other" Bible movie, and nearly as good as Matthew.

Like Visual Bible's film version of Matthew, Acts is straight from the NIV Bible. While Acts 8:37 has been omitted from the script as a result, the movie comes word-for-word from Acts- the story of the disciples spreading the Good News of Jesus to Jews and Gentiles alike.

All the actors are fine in their roles. The highlights are Luke- played by Dean Jones, who did Disney movies like The Love Bug and The Ugly Daschund beforehand and Peter- played by atheist actor James Brolin.

The Biblical accuracy is the most worthy of praise. In fact, in church, we are doing an Adult Bible study on Acts, and I have used clips to help me read the passages necessary to do the homework involved.

For those who love Biblical epics and want a break from Moses or Jesus for the theme, I highly recommend Acts. While it's long with a run-time of 3 hours and 13 minutes, it's well worth it and it gives one a deeper understanding of the spreading of The Gospel.

This is a word for word adaptation of The Acts of the Apostles. In actuality this works better as a visual audio book than an actual movie. That being said it's pretty good for what it is. The acting, for the most part, is decent. Dean Jones comes across best as Luke, who narrates the film. James Brolin makes a pleasant, if somewhat low key, Peter. (Of course any actor is kind of low key compared to James Farentino's portrayal of Peter in Zefirelli's JESUS OF NAZARETH). Henry O. Arnold is ok as Paul, but a bit of a letdown after seeing Anthony Hopkins as Paul in PETER AND PAUL. (Of course Hopkins is one of the greatest actors of all time. Almost any actor is a let down after him. Though James Faulkner made a good Paul in PAUL, APOSTLE OF CHRIST.) It's worthwhile seeing at least once if you are like me, a Bible film buff.

PROS

+ The movie is overall faithful to Scripture, although the translation is not very accurate and rather distracts from fully enjoying the movie. They used the liberal NIV translation, edited for screenplay by permission of the International Bible Society.

+ They developed a great idea, to show the plot, mixed with scenes where 'Luke' is narrating the plot.

+ Very beautiful scene with the healing of the lame beggar and many other powerful scenes.

CONS

• I did not appreciate the display of IESOUS - especially the scene where he was taken up into the smallest cloud one could imagine. It would have been wise to have not shown IESOUS at all, and to have 'Luke' narrate the first 11 verses of the book of Acts.

• Min 24: The Apostles are shown to pray with head coverings, which is a serious violation of Scripture. One of the signs of a Christian was his clear visual distinction from the Pharisees with their unbiblical head coverings.

• Min 47: It is a highly problematic scene when Simon the sorcerer is shown to pull an object from under Philipp's head covering. To make an Apostle an object of sorcery, is heretical, no matter if he is just used.

• Min 53: Baptism of the eunuch in a river instead of full immersion.

• Min 133, Paul is laughing while saying: "I served the Lord with great humility". Overall I agree that the dialogues have not always to be spoken in a very serious manner, but this movie sometimes goes into a problematic area, where common sense would expect more fear of Scripture.

• Min 140: The Apostles and other believers are once again shown to pray with head coverings. This is now after the Jerusalem council in 50 AD, when the New Covenant was well implemented. It is therefore a more serious transgression of Scripture than in minute 24.

• Min 153: IESOUS is shown in a room with Paul, taking the reading of Act 23:11 in an ultra-literal manner: "The following night KYRIOS stood by him". This is heretical, because IESOUS made it clear that He would come back at the end of our times, not sometime after 50 AD to Paul. The word 'stood' can also be translated with 'abide' and it would have been wise to either show a vision or to simply implement a voice.

ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

• It would have been great to show a simple map and the respective journey when the Apostles travelled to another city. Then the viewer could literally connect the dots and follow the journey.

I have to say, I really applaud the effort to promote this text, which is summarily suppressed in modern theology. I appreciate the simplicity used, not trying to over-reach by replicating the actual scope of action as it probably happened. It's enough to just re-state the events and provide the essential document in its historical setting. Although the text is silent on the presence of the Pharisee Saul, we know that he is present and that he is a witness to the birth and growth of the Church. This lends all the more to his dramatic change from persecutor to promoter. His testimony before King Agrippa was transfixing for me as a believer. It's a just movie, but it does have a positive effect, unlike that ridiculous, lying production titled "Noah." "Acts" demonstrates that faith in Christ didn't occur in a bottle, that men and women of that era testified to the power of God to change their lives and many paid for their testimony at the hands of the enemies of this message.

It's an old film, I'm watching it in 2021, maybe that's why I find it so poor. Luke has an audience on the boat who smile knowingly, lovingly, fondly at strange times. And Paul...at the end, especially, seems arrogant. I hope not to think of Paul, in the future, in the memory of this Paul. I am appreciative of this effort, I love being able to follow the Bible, to have it enacted. But, the story is beautiful. It could have been done with better acting.