Actes des apôtres

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.

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.

I watch a lot of Bible-based movies, some loved, others loathed.

The three movies of the Visual Bible productions are faithful to the source, and this is second only to the Gospel of John, in my opinion. So, I'll address my problems with it first, then move to why I can still say I love this movie.

Billing Jennifer O'Neill as "starring" is more than misleading. She spends less than four minutes on screen in this 193 minute movie, hardly a starring role. James Brolin seems a bit disconnected from the impetuous, passionate, foot-in-mouth Peter we find in scripture, but his isn't a bad performance, just short of my expectations.

The real stars are Henry Arnold as Saul/Paul, and Dean Jones as the aged Luke, as he narrates his book to passengers on a ship, which we find in the end arrives Rome where Paul is now under house arrest.

A huge plus for me is Bruce Marchiano's very brief camera time; I didn't like his portrayal of Jesus in the Visual "Gospel of Matthew". If you didn't find his silliness unsettling in Matthew, then this won't be the same bonus for you.

When you're using the Bible as your script (I love that concept), the ensemble must be strong enough to make it believable, and this cast does exactly that. I watch for facial expressions and other nuances to know how well an actor is connecting with his character, and most do this with great ease and success. I don't find Francesco Quinn credited for his role as Stephen, the first Christian martyr described in the Bible, but his performance is outstanding.

Any flourishes added in this film are a definite plus, and they're all limited to physical events, and in no way detract from this story of nascent Christianity.

If you're Christian, you'll love the allegiance to the Bible. If you're a more casual watcher, it might encourage you to read the book of Acts. It's simply a worthy movie.

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.