karenn1

It seems no one involved in this episode's production had ever read Quran. Even the usually insightful brilliant Bobby Goren spoke from a platform of ignorance.

I was 17 years late to this party, but it bore the years wonderfully. Both character and plot driven, this is a rare gem that will be just as enjoyable a decade from now.

Crime shows are among my favorites and this one is compelling watching start to finish, every episode. The core cast is strong, the crimes often creepy, the criminals eventually get their just desserts, even if it isn't in the courtroom. Most are stand alone episodes, and those that aren't always leave you with anticipation for what happens next.

In America, Law & Order SVU has been hanging on for two+ decades, and how I wish this Aussie drama were still giving us new episodes! I'm not going to say why I gave eight stars rather than ten, not wanting to influence others with my spoilers.

No one needs to watch this program out of desperation, because it's great entertainment, deserving more reviews than it has. Try not to miss this rare diamond.

This movie is so bad, barely recognizable for those who know the biblical account of this heroine of Israel. I just agonized through a second, and final, viewing, because I wanted to make sure that my original low score was not too harsh. I changed from a a four-star rating to a one-star rating, and that is only because I can't give it 0 stars. Don't let the names of Peter O'Toole (whom I saw nowhere in this scam of a production), but John Rhys Davies and Omar Sharif, drew me back after two decades to give it another try. They get the names right, and Esther's bold effort to save her Jews is right, but both are on the lowest scale of accuracy I remembered. If you're a Bible student, I'll leave it to you to make your own choice. Then watch Ester, staring Louise Lombard and F. Murray Abraham, and while embellished, is completely watchable without breaking out in hives. I'm accustomed to embellished biblical stories, but some I still see as entertaining without the assault I viewed in this insulting production. .I'm quite nearly Cheyenne-Stoking!

Except for the two reviews I read on IMDB, I wouldn't have ordered this video. You don't have the be a KJV-fan to appreciate this condensed history of how it came to influence our world for 400+ years, Probably more than any other British Monarch, King James is the best known, outside of Henry the 8th, The actor portraying James shows him to be a compelling personality. a "force of nature" during the early Reformation. Davies as the narrator/host is just the frosting on this cake.

I take a different approach to secular productions of the Bible; I don't expect them to be accurate, and this one doesn't seem to rise above that low expectation. I've watched the first two episodes, so I don't think that's enough to rate the series, or comment more fully. Right now, I'd give it one star. That might drop to no star, but it's doubtful it will climb to two stars. If I can stick with the series, I'll probably post a more detailed review.

This episode nearly caused me to abandon Murdoch completely. The director and cast should be indicted for premeditated stupidity and 1st degree contempt for their viewing audience. It wasn't entertaining, funny, or even tolerable; it was simply the most pig-ignorant script I've ever seen. I suspect everyone was really high on drugs when this ill-conceived idea was spawned. A pox on this waste of time. Don't bother!

I almost missed this series. I was half way through the first episode, wasn't invested in any of the characters, and saw nothing amazing enough to make we watch the second episode. But, I hung in, deciding to watch the entire episode, as I had some free time to waste. There's something like a nuclear bomb that gets dropped just before this episode ends, and if you miss that, you'll miss the brilliance behind the rest of the series. Midge suddenly becomes, and remains, so much more than amazing. She's one of the most delicious characters I've seen in a very long time. Clever repartee, an array of quirky characters, and a machine gun approach to dialogue that drew me into hanging onto every exchange, even though I usually agonize through four letter words. They aren't constant enough to assault those who don't appreciate them, so it was a small price to pay for some of the best screenwriting I've seen in a long time. Don't miss this series!

I stretched my generosity and gave this two stars for getting some of the names right. I know Caviezel thought this would be the biggest Bible movie ever, but I don't consider embellishment to qualify such hope. Did Paul's ministry need such frippery?

Luke, mentioned maybe four times in Scripture, was without the details invented for this movie. Did no one bother reading the Bible prior to this production? Did anyone protest taking such liberties, yet have the audacity to call this a Bible movie? It's a fanciful tale of a few heroic names from Scripture, but we know little of Luke, Priscilla, Aquila, other than they were staunch supporters of Paul's Christ-centered ministry, and traveling companions.

I've watched about 25 biblically based movies, and while none have earned my revulsion quite like Jeremy Sisto's portrayal of Jesus, few are excellent. This one falls far short of what was probably the expectation of Gibson. I can even take some adornments of Bible records, but to base an entire movie on them isn't acceptable.

We have no greater record of an Apostle than Paul's. Gibson's movie proves that adornments can't enhance our historical records from the Bible.

I once thought Bones was the most insulting effort for a series I'd ever tried to watch without vomiting. This show is far worse, because it copies so much of Bones, the entire production staff should be pilloried. Oddball ex-CIA paired with a less odd female detective, and I doubt either can get their shoes on the proper feet without assistance. I watched the first episode, and it was too campy for its inferior script, so I skipped episode two, and hoped by episode three it might have found its bearings. It's already been noted in another review that episode three of Instinct ripped off the plot of the murdered Amish boy, a piano prodigy, and it shamelessly plagiarizes the Bones script with a few very minor changes. I hope the screenwriters volunteered their inferior services, and the network wasn't stupid enough to actually pay for this tripe. I know I won't be back for future episodes, because this isn't even a "nice try" at entertaining anyone. I liked Alan Cumming in Good Wife, but he must have been drunk when he reviewed this script and decided it sounded like a winner.

Seven years after this fine series was prematurely buried, I can only wonder dully what possessed the network to cancel it after only one season. Was it a lack of audience, i.e., too little generation of commercial income? It certainly couldn't be that the scripts or cast weren't acceptable! The screen writing was compelling, the cast was a finely-tuned orchestra, and in spite of the small holes in some of its incidental information, everything seemed to be in place for an exciting ride for its viewing audience. Whatever happened to "if at first you don't succeed ..."? Why not give it one more season to see if it could draw a well deserved audience? I don't know what I was watching seven years ago, to overlook this short lived gem, so I'm part of the problem. But this isn't the only potential success that was abandoned after only one season, so it seems to be a general network childishness in their attitudes of "add water and stir" mentality. Not every effort is an instant success, but I think a massive success was aborted by the powers at ABC. Shame on them! Having just watched this, I knew going in that I'd need to resist getting attached to any of the characters, but that didn't help at all. I was attached to the entire cast of characters, so I still felt stunned to know I was approaching its final episode far too soon. I wanted more. I was invested in these people despite my effort to remain detached. Seven years postmortem, I'm still glad that I watched it. I'm thinking once you board this bus, you're going to stay with it, knowing it won't take you to a satisfactory destination.

What a loss!

This movie is now available on Netflix streaming, so it was included in the cost of my monthly subscription. Had I paid the price for a movie ticket, I''d be tempted to sue for a refund.

The dialogue is clunky, and cut from whole cloth. Other than the actor who played David, the rest of these imposters seem content to behave as third-grade (and third rate) children, taunting their enemies.

In the early part of the movie, when David seems to be inspired to the beautiful 23rd Psalm, he stops a line without completing it. So, he's taking comfort in his God, by saying, "You make me lie", without completing his thought, "to lie down in green pastures". What sort of brain dead screen writer thought that was a good idea? Especially those who know Scripture??!! Until I watched this joke yesterday, my Razzie Awards were given to three other ludicrous "Bible" movies: the Australian production of Samson and Delilah, Turner's offering, "Jesus" starring Jeremy Sisto, and the appallingly stupid "Noah's Ark" with John Voight as Noah.

I watch many Bible movies, and I'm not offended by certain embellishments as long as they're somewhat intelligent. Even if I weren't Christian, I'd consider this production as inferior entertainment.

Like many other critical reviewers of this substandard waste of intellect and time, I'm dumbfounded to see a single positive review of this piece of debris. I made sure to give it the lowest rating possible, so Netflix didn't offer me more trash from the sewer of such ignorance seen in this ludicrous counterfeit of no value at all.

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.

I watch all Bible based movies available to me, half fall far short of my hopes for accuracy. This little low-budget gem won me over, so I purchased it for my library. Yes, there are some cheesy scenes looking out over Babylon, but they're few and short lived. Yes, some of the editing was careless (a bloodless sword being withdrawn from Belshazzar's body), but it is faithful to the story presented in the first six books of Daniel, and most of the performances are well done and sensitive to the characters.

I find Bongiorno's younger Daniel as wonderful to watch as Miano's elder Daniel. Saxon's Nebuchadnezzar is a very nuanced performance (and my favorite of the four kings covered). If the magicians, enchanters, and sorcerers seem a bit campy, go grab a Coke from the fridge, and they'll be gone when you return.

I give this production a ten for its effort, an eight for execution.

NONE of this praise can translate to the horrible effort of PureFlix "Book of Esther", one of the worst Bible movies I've seen. That should have had a sword run clean through it. It nearly made me break out in hives for all it's egregious failures on every level.

PureFlix movies can range from the great effort of Daniel, and Ruth, to the dregs of "Esther" and the mediocre "Blink of an Eye". I suggest viewing free before considering purchase. We all have different expectations for worthy viewing.

My opinion is nestled somewhere between the glowing reviews and the scathing rebukes of others.

Marchiano's Jesus isn't completely repugnant (as is Jeremy Sisto's air-headed "Jesus" insulting portrayal), but I am never left feeling inspired or edified after viewing, either. I neither love nor hate the fact that I bought the movie prior to knowing anything about it. I'm filled with ambivalence about this film.

It's impossible to mess up the script since it's word-for-word from the NIV Bible (which might repel KJV purists), but it is possible to mess up what is revealed about the character of the Christ. Horse-play with the guys, Bruce? Really? Did He really fancy Himself a stand-up comedian during His magnificent Sermon on the Mount? What was the director thinking? What was Marchiano thinking to not mutiny at this point? Did either of them think at all? I find the scene based on chapter 7 unsettling and more than a little insulting, so I fast forward through it.

I don't need Jesus to be robotic like Robert Powell's depiction, and certainly not a childish flirt like Jeremy Sisto's Jesus, but something was also missing for me in Marchiano's performance, which cannot be blamed on bad scripting.

I know what my problem is with this "Matthew": The first of the Visual Bible trilogy that I watched was "The Gospel of John" with Henry Ian Cusick in the role of the Christ. He became my personal gold standard for a wonderfully balanced presentation of the Son of God. Layered and nuanced to perfection, not inappropriately morose, and never silly, but showing a full range of expected emotions, actions and reactions to 1st century Israel dwellers. He covered all the emotions with great respect and reverence. I like that! It's my prayer that Marchiano realizes he's now aged out of repeating the role of Jesus and looks for more appropriate scripts to toy around with. For all the experience he's had in sundry Jesus roles (I really liked his contemporary Jesus in "The Encounter"), you'd think he'd have it honed to perfection. There's no rehearsal time left, Bruce; your Jesus days are over. Let's see you try to act as playful and frivolous with John the Revelator in a production of The Apocalypse!

Quite possibly the worst Jesus movie I've ever seen. I know "artistic liberties" are taken in all movies, but this script molested the Bible, and the writer should be called before a Tribunal at the Hague for torturing Scripture.

I didn't mind Jesus being considerably more light-hearted than in most movies (even though Isaiah describes Him as "A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief"), but I did resent the gratuitous liberties taken with actual Bible accounts.

Whether it's the depiction of the Christ announcing his impending death to His mother, the death scene of His earthly father Joseph, the timing and method of choosing the 12, the extremely poor sound mixing ... well, it would take a pamphlet to cover every insulting aspect of this illegitimate facsimile of a "Bible" movie.

The kindest thing I can say for this production is that Debra Messing made a drop-dead gorgeous hooker, Mary M. From all other errors in this movie, I wouldn't expect the writer to do a bit of research and discover that Magdalene actually wasn't a prostitute.

I turned it off after Jesus told His mother that He would die in a couple days. So, I agonized through much of it, but enough was enough.

I don't know what Suzette Couture is doing for a living nowadays, but it should be criminal if she is still trying to impersonate a writer.

I don't want to sell the movie on Ebay; my conscience wouldn't let me do that. Maybe I'll sail it like a Frisbee and let the pieces fall where they may. I do know I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Just when I thought nothing could be as offensive and/or irritating as a Billy Mays infomercial, I had the intellectually shattering experience of renting this piece of garbage. Peter Barnes and John Irvin should be brought up on criminal charges for smuggling this script into the public venue. The actors need to be charged as accomplices, serving no less than a lifetime away from the public eye.

This production offers the disclaimer, "For dramatic effect, we have taken poetic license with certain facts", or some such inadequate statement to fully brace you for the absolute repugnant rewrite of a Bible story which needed no drama added. What they did add was enough to make your I.Q. drop three full points for every five minutes of viewing time.

The "poetic license" taken, invents characters so bizarre, you'll recognize nothing but the names of a few, and, of course, the ark.

For some reason, Noah and Lot are both living in Sodom, so maybe Abram was vacationing in Switzerland on a skiing trip. Lot's wife, played by Carol Kane, is a harpy, and when she's turned to a pillar of salt, Lot breaks off her finger and carries it around in what appears to be an empty baby food jar. If that's "poetic", I'm a kumquat.

When Noah - who has now begun drinking wine in quantities that could help float the ark - whines about the tough job of the building project, he awakens one morning to find that God has delivered enough precut lumber to lighten his burden. At least I think it was God. It looked like a delivery from 84 Lumber, neatly stacked and bundled. Maybe 84 Lumber is really an agent for God????? Rather than bore you with the cargo being loaded, I'll regale you with the account of the pirate attack on the ark. Incongruous, you think? This movie is filled with such insulting nonsense. After an untold time on the waters, Noah spies a pirate ship heading right for them. And who might the salty sea-captain be? Well, duh, it's Lot, of course! My only surprise was that his uncle Abram wasn't aboard. If you're going to slaughter a plot line, slaughter all of it. The piracy attempt is unsuccessful, and the swashbuckling was pathetic, not poetic. I think it was around this mark that my nausea prevented me from punishing myself anymore.

An ugly, senseless, moronic distortion of anything remotely resembling a Bible account. On a scale of 1 - 10, this movie is premeditated mind abuse. Stupid and insulting, you'll be more entertained by reading the Yellow Pages.