youtubefacebook-864-991500 I totally think it was not the best movie to see for Saint Paul's life. But there is one reason to watch it over and over again. And the reason is Thomas Lockyer- Reuben if you like. Yes, I agree that he is a fictional character just like Dinah. But it's a very well performed one too. Thomas looks amazing and magnetic in this film, charming but psycho at the same time.Yes, his girlfriend is the best looking one in the whole bible series, but he deserved that! They are both fake characters but artistically speaking, they make the movie more interesting. And that's the reason there is the sex scene after the wedding. I agree it's not very biblical but useful to make more complete their characters and the situation more realistic. There are other mistakes too like Barnabas baptizing Saul by his own command or Saul being also interested in Dinah. Another well performed role was Barnaba's, who was a little funny too, again to make the movie more interested.I recommend the movie only if you are interested in performances(-and let's face it- Thomas Lockyer's will indemnify you)

exactcopies It purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they "separated" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.The movie shows Barnabas "sprinkling" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have "known Jesus for a long time" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.Why not just call the movie "Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture.

Roufler 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.

shayera This is quite fascinating. We follow the man Saul, who as an authority figure persecutes the growing sect of these dangerous christians. And see him at last turn the 'the light'. as Saint Paul, he is a much revered person in Christianity, but this movie portrays him also before, not covering up in mushy mushy goodness that he did was he was supposed to, therefore making his eventual christianity more deer and costly to him and his friends.