The Emissary: A Biblical Epic

This film is only an hour long and tries to cover way too much in one hour. I wondered if it was edited from a longer film or was it done on such a low budget they only highlighted episodes of Paul's life. The title should be "Highlights from Paul's Life." I'm sure the producers' hearts were in the right place, but, unfortunately, it wasn't a very good film. The acting was poor by most of the supporting actors. The actor who played Paul was ok, but he was working with a weak script. The dialogue could have been better. If you are going to see a movie about Paul see the made for tv 1981 film PETER AND PAUL, starring Anthony Hopkins as Paul and Robert Foxworth as Peter, instead. Or see the 2018 film PAUL, APOSTLE OF CHRIST, starring James Faulkner as Paul and Jim Caviezel as Luke. Or watch a documentary on Paul like IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF SAINT PAUL, hosted by David Suchet. Or, better yet read a good biography on Paul, such as PAUL: A BIOGRAPHY by N.T. Wright. Or, best of all, read Paul's letters and The Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament.

A correct portrait of Saint Apostle Paul and his mission. It is the only detail who can be significant. The other controverses, not different by the reproches about Christian films are not so important. Fair performances, fair atmosphere, good storytelling. And it is enough for not regret to see it.

It is an art in itself to avoid producing another lengthy movie, to compact much material into a format of less than an hour, but still to make this movie appear long. It appears as some commentators prefer longer movies, but I appreciate compact productions with a high content of information as found here.

PROS

+ Great summary and highlights of Paul's life.

+ Mostly great acting.

+ Good production considering a limited budget.

NEUTRAL

• Words are added / subtracted to Saul's vision and other stories, but it is never to the spiritual detriment of the viewer and expected to a certain degree in such a movie. And it is good to see a great faithfulness in the dialogue with Agrippa. The accuracy could be higher, but is already much higher than most Christian movies which rather use bits and pieces from the Bible, but not such lengthy passages.

• IESOUS is shown in the cloud and in Paul's vision. This is not necessarily problematic, but it still doesn't feel right to make such images of Him.

CONS

• The camera is often excellent, but sometimes also a bit 'wild'.

• Paul healed the son of the sorcerer, a story I do not remember from the Bible. The burning of the books would have implied multiple sorcerers.

• The boat from the last mission trip is way too small and very few prisoners are present.

• Paul is not martyred in the Bible.

After the first five minutes foam rubber stones and heavy English accents. Better to read the Gospel.