User reviews

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.

I first saw this on TV and was overwhelmed. It's a decent account of the story of Paul's journeys as he spread the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ from his conversion on the "road to Damascus" to his final imprisonment in Rome. If you've read the Acts of the Apostles, or the epistles of Paul, you won't be surprised except by the continuity of this well-written script. You may also learn how Paul's background as both a Jew and a citizen of Rome facilitated his founding of many churches.

Anthony Hopkins was overwhelming as the Apostle "Paul". There were minor distractions, most notably Eddie Albert of "Green Acres" and Raymond Burr of "Perry Mason" hired (no doubt) for there (TV) "star power". Robert Foxworth is primarily known as a TV-star who has a long career in "made for TV movies" and guest and starring roles in many popular dramatic series.

Afterwards, as I read the writings of Paul in the New Testament, I can still hear Hopkins' voice in my head ... his articulation, phrasing, pauses,and conviction resulting in highly effectual communication. Yes, he was and is that good, even to today's role as the Norse God, Odin. His masterful style remains strong.

I bought this on VHS and loved it. Years later, I bought it on DVD. It remains unavailable online. Why? I don't know. Sir Anthony Hopkins is a major movie star. This protégé of Lawrence Olivier went on to star in many major movie productions such as "The Elephant Man", "A Bridge Too Far", and "Magic". Previous to 1981, he had done many fine and honored "made for TV movies", such as "The Bunker" (Adolph Hitler) and "The Lindberg Kidnapping" (Bruno Hauptmann).

You can still buy this on DVD from Amazon. Unfortunately, that remains our only source for viewing this breathtaking Christian drama. Someday, I hope to see it available on VUDU, Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu or some other streaming outlet. Until then, I'm content to have a copy of the DVD.

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.

Say what you will hopkins greatest performance I 1st saw this movie when I got saved in1997 ave watched it many times since it follows the book of acts which is a historical book not a doctrinal book and the rise of the body of Christ and fall of Israel nevertheless it is an excellent movie for the lost and saved alike when I get to heaven and meet Paul I expect him to look like Anthony Hopkins he played such a convincing role definitely reccomend this movie

This movie is among the more engaging of the TV Biblical films, as well as holding true to scripture, with just a little 'creative license' for areas that are vague. However, when I heard Anthony Hopkins was playing Paul, I was quite leery, at best, yet he did a magnificent job - Magnificent! One of the mysteries of the Bible is the manner in which people spoke and communicated in various scenarios. Did the person express agitation or anger when he/she said this/that? Or were they always full of patience and grace? We must remember that these people were all human beings, just like us. Each movie and play we view that is an adaptation, it is the creators that create the mood and the mode of each scene and conversation. It is simply a guess at best as to how things were spoken or acted out, however, we do know that Paul was a man absolutely full of fire and passion, and had his share of a temper. I believe the execution of Paul's character in this film had greater accuracy then many others, due to this truth that many times is over-looked. And Anthony Hopkins was the man to nail it.

The film really brings us to a greater place of understanding the reality and nature of what took place back then. The cast is filled with actors/actresses that executed their roles just beautifully. Praise God there are players out there that desire to spread the word through their vocation, and to do so with such care.

When Cecil B DeMille developed "The Ten Commandments" in 1956, there began a wave of sorts of motion pictures devoted to Biblical themes, which, in order to deliver those themes were of "epic" proportions. With every good intention, these films tried to follow Scripture as closely as they could because there were enough Biblical scholars which could easily prove them wrong in their historical rendering.

Hollywood, as we all know, is not religious. It's reputation for exploiting anything it can for money is familiar to us all. In the case of "Peter And Paul", there are two exceptions.

Proctor and Gamble, one of the most reputable companies in the world was faced with a rumor dilemma in the early 80's. Many will remember the scandalous innuendo accusing P&G of association with a church of Satan. Their evidence was the 60 year old logo on P&G products depicting a circle in which a crescent man-in-the-moon was encircled with a group of stars. Despite Proctor and Gamble's passionate attempts to put and end to these lies, public suspicion still abounded. One more possibility existed to end this insidious slander. This would be the first exception.

"Peter And Paul" is the story of the two major apostles in the New Testament.

Robert Foxworth as Peter is a brilliant performance from beginning to end. I'm tempted to believe that he was absorbed in his character so much that it may very well be the reason he was able to portray Peter so effectively. Why Mr Foxworth did not receive an Emmy for this role, I can't understand.

Anthony Hopkins, on the other hand, needs the entire four hours of this picture to really involve himself into his portrayal as Paul. His initial dialog with Jose Ferrer, a brilliant actor, is weak and irritating. The only forceful emotion he shows is when he blows up at Peter and Barnabas (Herbert Lom). His sermons to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and the Greeks in Antioch are not convincing. Only during his time with Luke and Timothy, does his character become really poignant.

Exception number two. It has been widely speculated that the reason this beautiful motion picture never made it to the big screen is because the producers wanted to literally deliver it "in house". In other words, television touches the heart more than movies ever could. That has always been true and always will be. The dad, mom and kids around the TV who use Tide, Cheer, Prell, Crest, Bounty and the endless assortment of P&G products would be impressed by the announcer stating that "Peter And Paul is sponsored by the products and services of the Proctor And Gamble Company", while the logo of the moon-man and stars was emblazened across their TV screens. It was a beautifully creative idea for all the right reasons, but unfortunately, didn't work. It has also been widely speculated that it was P&G's competitors who started the rumor. A few years later, disgusted with the continued lies and harassment, Proctor and Gamble pulled the logo from their entire product line. Jealous, competitive liars had won.

"Peter And Paul" is an epic whether on the motion picture screen or not. Any professing Christian will be deeply touched by this movie and even non-Christians cannot help but be moved by its message of love and perseverance in the face of strife and suffering.

It is impossible to take the 30 years of history that encompassed that era and relegate it to four hours. The importance of this movie is the message of hope and faith that it conveys and that we can all understand its meaning in our lives today.

Just like the previous review, I saw this movie in 1984 on a night I wanted to kill myself. It lead to my reading the Bible, which led to my conversion to Christ. Hopkins' brilliantly enunciated Welsh diction, and his compassion and drive as Paul are unforgettable. A deeply moving portrayal of Christianitiy's greatest, most brilliant advocate. In April, 1984, I set out from my house in great despair. I was 30 and my life until then had been a failure. I found I was afraid to kill myself, and asked God to take my life, since He had given me life. I ended up at a farmhouse outside of West Chicago, Il. There my brother was watching the teleplay of Peter and Paul on CBS. It was so full of quotes from the New Testament that God opened the eyes of my heart to the truth of who Jesus of Nazareth really was. Two days later I became a believer and now do open air preaching in Greece, just as Paul did.

This was an excellent time portal of the New Testament letters and personality clashes of the early church. I couldn't get around the anger of Paul but when he was shown writing down the meaning of agape (love of God) from Hebrews I totally changed my judgement, and seen the profound reason why God chose him. I liked Barnnapas the most because of his humor and passive nature. I never thought much about Marks youth, compared to the others so it was nice they included it. You get to see the struggle of the early church and how Peter could totally want to lay down his life for Jesus and then be in fear when he is accused of being with the Lord. The times then were very oppressive and greedy. Just like today but less populated. A good acting job by Anthony Hopkins and a good part for him to play. Paul's confidence and determination to keep going was well shown.

It's been over 20 years since this film was produce with some of Hollywood's great names. I can only imagine their embarrassment (if they are still alive) that it is still being shown anyway. The script is hokey, the performances trite and melodramatic. It is Sunday school religion at its worst -- two dimensional, preachy and poorly representative of the complexities of first century Christianity, Judaism, and the sacred texts of each. To paraphrase something I recently heard, there is nothing wrong with a 5th grade understanding of religion -- if you are in the 5th grade. Adults should demand better of their faith and its representation.

This is a great movie for those who want to understand the early decades of the Christian church. Anthony Hopkins as Paul and Robert Foxworth as Peter are fabulous in their acting. Paul is obviously more passionate and the story tends to give him more screen time. The movie tells the story of how and what the disciples did following the Resurrection. In the book of Galatians in the New Testament, Paul is revisiting churches he started which have come under the influence of Judiazers who say that Christians must be Jews, and that Gentiles must be circumsized.

Paul meets with Peter, who has not left the general area of Jerusalem to discuss this problem. His argument is that Jesus came to save all--Jew and Gentile alike, and he has been travelling to Greece and Asia Minor making large numbers of converts. The arguments he makes to Peter, is that salvation is by faith, that Jesus plus nothing is the key to salvation, and that works or previous Jewish religious practices are now irrelevant. Peter eventually is pursuaded, and after about 30 years of doing little, agrees with Paul's arguments. Paul's other journeys are dramatized and his final days seem to drag out the movie, but the performances are top notch!

I am 67 years old as I write this, and I have been a follower of Jesus since I was 11 years old. I have a Master of Divinity seminary degree (1983), and was in full-time church ministry for 20 years. It is with this prelude that I highly unequivocally recommend this wonderful portrayal.

As my headline states, the script is absolutely biblically accurate, not infused with the usual Hollywood fiction or extra-curricular items. Anthony Hopkins as Paul and Robert Foxworth as Peter are particularly outstanding in this unbelievably well-made TV movie from 1981. The costuming, scenery, and other characters are all well done.

Amazingly, this is my first time seeing this movie, but I'm sure it's one that I'll go back and watch more than once. It's an entirely enjoyable movie, and it's message is too important to overlook.

This film probably really should have been called PAUL AND OCCASIONALLY PETER because it focuses more on Paul than Peter. This was first aired in 1981. Though not a great film by any means and, at times, uneven, it's still a good film, mostly because Anthony Hopkins superb performance as Saint Paul. Robert Foxworth mades a good, if not great, Peter. (My favorite portrayal of Peter is James Farentino in JESUS OF NAZARETH.) There are some really good supporting actors in it: Herbert Lom as Barnabas, John Rhys-Davis as Silas,David Gwillim as Mark and Jon Finch as Luke. Jose Ferrer, Raymond Burr, and Jean Peters appear in, more or less, cameos. Eddie Albert plays Roman Procurator Festus and he is nowhere near as good an actor as Hopkins. The costume designs and set designs were good. The makeup was quite good and this film won an Emmy for it. It is a long film, it was originally aired over two nights. Despite being long, I felt it was the right length for the story.

There are two things I wish were shown but weren't. One was baptism was a big part of the early church. That was and still is the initiation into most Christian churches, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. They have, at least, showed Paul being baptized, but they didn't. They also should have shown or, at least, mentioned the fire of Rome. The Romans persecuted the Christians because Nero used them as a scapegoat saying they started the fire to direct any criticism away from him. There was a rumor he started the fire.

Interesting tidbit. James Faulkner has a small role as one of the Jewish Christians who are critical of Paul preaching converting Gentiles. Faulkner would later go on to play Paul in the 2017 film PAUL, APOSTLE OF CHRIST.

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.

About what you would expect from a made-for-TV drama based on the Bible: reverent, hagiographic, and scrupulously faithful to a literal reading of the New Testament. No attempt to question or deconstruct the officially handed down story, this production works primarily as an illustrated guide to the Acts of the Apostles (for a more controversial view of Paul, and his relationship with Jesus's original disciples, read Hyam Maccoby's "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity"). As such, I suppose this could be seen as a useful teaching aid for Bible studies - much like the miniseries Jesus of Nazareth was for the Gospels. However, don't expect much beyond that: the locations, direction and acting are all serviceable at best, and the drama is mostly underdeveloped. To anyone not already familiar with the story, in fact, the events portrayed within are probably too confusing and inexplicable to be enjoyable or instructive in any way.

I first saw this as a little kid, and I remember that Anthony Hopkins (who I'd never heard of or seen before) made an impression on me (this was well before his Hannibal Lecter days). I rented this on video recently mainly to find out why. It was probably because he is so very striking *looking* as Paul - he has strong features, and a perpetually determined expression on his face. However, I do not find his portrayal convincing overall; he is far too restrained, too genteel, and he plays the part, from first to last, as if assured of his sainthood from the outset. That's the problem with all these Bible stories for TV: they get mired in their own piousness, and assume a reverence which is never earned or explained. As such, they are for believers only. Certainly, Paul must have been a more wily and bombastic character, more slippery and egotistical, than he is portrayed here. In other words, there's a great *human* story in him - to be told by someone, somewhere. This ain't it.

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?

it is its great virtue. to present a story not only in convincing manner but in the grace of its nuances. story of a fight for faith, it is a remarkable portrait of the two apostles. for the science to explore vulnerabilities, searches and the need to serve the Truth. for the force of words and the trips in the heart of an empire. for the life of the first communities. for the courage to be more than a historical film. for the admirable portraits. and for the roots of the sacrifice. sure, nothing surprising. a great cast, smart script. and the images with the gift to be more than illustration of Christian first steps. a film of questions. useful for rediscover a battle who seems today almost a myth.