FILM REVIEW: Paul, Apostle of Christ (2018)

Directed by Andrew Hyatt

* 1/2

During Sunday morning visits to church with the family, our pastor would occasionally have a guest conduct the sermon. This was never much to look forward to. I mean and imply no contempt toward the individual(s) whatsoever (most of, if not all, the people from my old church are some truly amazing people), but these guest sermons almost always went way overtime. We would sit and listen to what they had to say, smile, nod at something poignant, but the fidgeting got more intense, watch-checks became more frequent, and as a result, engagement in what might be an amazing sermon steadily diminished (I’m not the only one who felt this way). These overlong sermons were double-frustrating when a delicious brunch was scheduled following church.

Though no brunch was had following my viewing of Paul, Apostle of Christ, the experience recounted above is almost identical to viewing this film: as nice and well-intentioned as it may be, any power it might have been is completely obliterated by the fact that it does nothing to engage the viewer and overstays its welcome, and it’s not even two hours long.

The title is somewhat misleading, as Paul, Apostle of Christ is less about Paul (James Faulkner) than it is about Luke (Jim Caviezel). The world that surrounds them persecutes Christians in ugly, inhuman ways. Paul sits in prison, awaiting execution, but is visited regularly by Luke, who is writing a book on Paul’s wisdom and teachings (perhaps a more proper title would be Go Ask Paul). When Luke is not learning from Paul, he joins his brethren, who are conflicted in taking the peaceful route vs. taking up arms against their persecutors. This is all I could gather from the plot, because I got practically nothing beyond that (and even then, I had to consult the Internet for guidance on the basics).

I am purely interested in film and the art of filmmaking. My thoughts and opinions on other issues do not belong in my reviews, including theology. I cannot emphasize this enough, because I was extremely close to walking out of this one. Paul, Apostle of Christ, as a film has only one issue, but that one issue is enough to destroy the movie: it is boring. Unbearably, insufferably, tediously, torturously boring. Lightly slapping my face after very briefly dozing off became routine. I don’t like taking bathroom breaks during movies at the risk of missing plot points, but had I not taken one, I probably would have walked out (you guys are so lucky I have integrity when it comes to film criticism).

Are there any solid performances in the film? I have absolutely no idea. Yeah, Jim Caviezel is a solid actor (he’s one of the best parts of the WW2 masterpiece The Thin Red Line), and there is a slight glimmer of enigma in James Faulkner’s portrayal of Paul that the character requires, but nobody really had a chance to act in this movie. Everybody speaks in that quasi-intense raspy whispering almost all of the time. Legitimate vocalization does occur, but only when the plot requires it.

Raspy whispering does not equal acting or character, and considering that most every key player talks like this, it is evident that the writers had no idea how to write distinctive characters. All of the dialogue is the same old biblical-era lingo that we’re so accustomed to hearing, that kind of renaissance fair dialect with praises to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost thrown in. And then there’s the Roman soldiers: same old sinister and hateful disregard to those below them. The generic quality of the dialogue isn’t even laughable due to just how uninteresting everything is.

As for set design? Lighting? Sound? At least all of that gets the job done. Nothing to write home about, though (and the film does fall victim to moments of over-production). Set designs, while competent, still look like sets, and the arbitrary omnipresence of smoke and fog just makes it kind of cheesy.

Paul, Apostle of Christ, believe it or not, does have two unfortunately brief scenes that were actually quite good. One is Luke’s examination of a Roman soldier’s ailing daughter, where differences are set aside for the betterment of another human being. Additionally, the film ends on a hair-raisingly moving scene, a sort of abstract presentation of legacy and eternal life, filmed in such a way that might make Terrence Malick proud.

Then again, this was all during the final stretch of the movie, which means it was ending soon.

I wish I had more to say for the sake of a more well-rounded review, but I really can’t help it. I know a good movie when I see one, and this was not one of those moments. Perhaps a better understanding of the source material would have made the film more engaging, so maybe it’s my own fault (I’ve not read the bible), but Paul, Apostle of Christ is a film before it is a sermon, and a good film should invite its audience rather than alienate, regardless of who might be in that audience. There is material here for a deeply moving and spiritual experience of a film, but this interpretation of a key figure in the bible resulted in one of the most boring films I can recall in recent memory.