St. Paul

2000

Action / Adventure / Drama

9
IMDb Rating 6.5/10 10 1302 1.3K

christianity apostle bible religious film 1st century christian faith

Plot summary

A biblical epic from the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles covering his conversion from Saul of Tarsus to his ministry to the Gentiles.

Director

Roger Young Photo
Roger Young

Top cast

Christian Brendel Photo
Christian Brendel as James 2 episodes, 2000
Franco Nero Photo
Franco Nero as Gamaliel unknown episodes
Ennio Fantastichini Photo
Ennio Fantastichini as Peter 2 episodes, 2000
Umberto Orsini Photo
Umberto Orsini as Tribune 2 episodes, 2000
720p.BluRay 1080p.BluRay
1.61 GB
1280*720
English 2.0
NR
Subtitles us  
23.976 fps
2 hr 59 min
Seeds 6
3.31 GB
1904*1072
English 5.1
NR
Subtitles us  
23.976 fps
2 hr 59 min
Seeds 7

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by Roufler 7 / 10

Stereotypical, but entertaining.

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.
Reviewed by stitch-99 7 / 10

An account of watching this film with my Bible college buddies

I attend a Bible college in NE and a friend of mine got a hold of this film and we watched it on the hall. This is my story.From a film standpoint, I was drawn in by the acting (with the possible exception of Dinah), as well as by the story, mostly. For the most part, everything was good. I especially liked the fact that Bailey had a bearable role in this film, as opposed to his portrayal of Livio in the previous film Jesus. I was taken aback by several scenes' inclusion that had nothing to do with Paul (e.g. the execution of the guards, pretty much the entire 20 minutes where Paul was in the desert), but the film ultimately gets back to Paul.From a historical view, I myself didn't notice anything wrong. However, the guys I was watching it with would often interrupt to say that something wasn't culturally accurate (most notably, the wrestling intro).I interpreted the fictional character of Rueben as largely a personification of the same type of attitude that Saul had (hence their friendship and then enmity). My disbelief was suspended slightly when he was assigned to hunt down and kill Paul, but it's not an insurmountable obstacle.The character of Dinah, to the best of my reasoning, was extrapolated out of the conflicting theories on whether or not Paul was married. However, she took on a much larger role. I didn't find her role as Rueben's unwitting informant very believable or necessary.Also, consider yourselves warned: this film does contain brief nudity. Early in the film, Saul and Rueben are seen from behind, bathing. More notably, however, was the honeymoon scene. I recall my troupe watching it and one asking if Christians made this movie. We told him yes and he was disappointed that he wasn't going to see breasts. However, three seconds later, she took off her top and was seen topless for a considerable amount of time (by the way, this prompted a freak-out among the audience). Take that how you will.Some have voiced disgust with the film as an adaption, claiming it leaves out important details, creates too many of its own, or replaces too many. I, myself, felt that the details left out were done so with good reason: they weren't relevant. I don't think that too many elements were invented as explained above in my analysis of Rueben and Dinah's characters. As for replacing elements (the most prominent example being Rome, not Mark, being the cause of Paul and Barnabas' split), I did notice them but wasn't too upset about them After all, Mark could very well have been a subtext of that conversation. However, introducing and developing him would take too much time (not that they didn't waste time on anything else...).One final note: the film is fairly long. I knew that going into it and I still felt like it was longer than it actually was.All-in-all, this was an enjoyable film. I would not recommend it if you have aversions to stylistic inaccuracies, nudity (unless you just skip over it), fictional characters sharing the screen with biblical ones, long movies, a few pointless scenes, or simply parts of the biblical narrative being *gasp* omitted. Still, if you can get past those things, you will enjoy this (I realized just now that I sound like I'm joking. Well, I'm not. It's a decent movie).
Read more IMDb reviews

9 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment