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.
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.