To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

The story of Jacob was one I knew nothing about before I sat down to watch this TV movie, which may be why I found it so engaging to watch. The hour and a half running time flies past as we follow a story involving pride, betrayal and eventual redemption.JACOB works because it's all about the characters and the emotion. The whole gamut of the human experience is explored here - love, death, pain, suffering, respect - against a canvas of people who aren't merely vessels for story elements but who seem to be alive whether they're on the screen or off it.And what a cast! Matthew Modine, who I've never liked before, is unrecognisable and all heart as Jacob. Sean Bean is excellent, if seldom used, as his brother Esau. Then we get the supporting players: elder veterans (Joss Ackland, Irene Papas, Giancarlo Giannini) mixed with the then-popular (Lara Flynn Boyle) and the future famous (Christoph Waltz). Their talents help to make this a compelling Biblical adaptation.

In response to #1, who didn't understand how Jacob could be with his grandfather: Jacob (Yaakov) and Esav were 15 when Abraham died. The reason Jacob was making lentil soup was because lentils as well as other round type foods are the traditional foods Jews eat upon returning from burying an immediate family member.The time line is as follows: Abraham lived 175 years and was 100 when Issac was born. Isaac lived 185 years and was 60 when Yaakov and Esav were born. This would make Abraham 160 when his grandchildren were born and 15 when he died.As for the "dowry," that was taken from him by Elifaz the son of Esav as he was sent to kill Yaakov. The problem Elifaz had was that he used to study with Yaakov and as such was looking for a way not to actually "kill" his uncle while at the same time listen to his father. The way around that was to take all of Yaakov's possessions and according to the Talmud, a destitute person is considered dead, thus he "honored" his father.You were correct that the "accuracy" to the Torah was quite good. I would not go ahead and compare the Torah story of Yaakov to anything else you did as there can be NO comparison.

Reading many reviews by a fellow IMDb writer that prefers the sword and sandals movies and the antiquity/Middle Ages epics (so many sub-genres that in fact are substantially different and only randomly brought together by a common label,in the lack of a real common denominator),I remembered this small and decent TV feature that I have seen almost 14 yrs. ago on a videocassettes.Other epic/biopics /antiquity renderings seen in the same period were "Moses the Lawgiver" (1974),Joseph (1995) (TV) by Roger Young -- modest and unassuming TV productions that meant to instruct and to relax .If there was any creation in them,it was performances--wise (e.g. Ben Kingsley and Martin Landau in the star--studded Joseph (1995) (TV),or Burt Lancaster,Anthony Quayle and Irene Papas in Gianfranco De Bosio's "Moses the Lawgiver" ,1974).They pretty much delineate a class of films, a TV genre--not epics, not adventure films,but honest straight decent productions,sometimes with a surprising cast.They are conceived rather as small relaxing films, without ambitions or pretensions.Taken as such,they're fun to watch.They are not very colorful, exotic, neither mystical—rather standard family TV.One can find pleasing things in them;I hope I have pointed to some. Modest and instructive, educative, they do not resemble nor the big—budgeted spectacular lavish Hollywoodian blockbusters (or the Italian ones, assembled at the beginning of that national school of cinema …),nor the cruel violent brutal SALAMMBO style (in terms of _sapidity), nor the properly speaking religious movies (i.e., those made by Dreyer, Bresson, Gibson, Mrs. Cavani, etc.). Their aim is chiefly educative; they narrate as movie Biblical events. Jacob (1994) (TV) was the one that stood out, for me at least;I liked it the best.I have seen it during a time when I was willing to watch any movie with LF Boyle. She and Drew B. and Shannon T. and Lysette A. and Tanya R. were my goddesses. To them I owe much of my knowledge of the '90s B cinema.

There were not very many errors or even extra-biblical plot elements. I would guess that there are not more than a dozen films that are both widely available and as accurate as this one. Still there were a few odd things that made me wonder...like at the start of the film, Jacob is with "his grandfather"? How can this be? The last time we know for certain that both Isaac and Abraham were alive together was earlier in Genesis when Eliezer returns from finding a wide for Isaac.Abraham must have died somewhere around the time either just before or just after the twins (Jacob and Esau) were born. In the film, Isaac and Abraham actually die within the same year, or possibly Isaac dies first! Well, that is trivial but my point and my concern is that when a film is as accurate as this it can lead some to learn incorrectly if they assume everything is accurate.The things I like about this may also seem trivial, but they are plentiful and continue throughout the film. When Jacob has to flee to Laban's village, it takes several days. There was an interesting thing they added to the film that actually may be a logical addition from the story that we are not told. When Jacob leaves for Laban's, the Bible does tell us that Isaac sends him to take a wife. We are not told about a dowry and this is a very interesting mystery. Why? Now only is this a very important custom, but we also know that Abraham and Isaac were very very wealthy. None of the films I have seen even begin to show how much so. When Abraham went on an urgent mission to save Lot (before Sodom was destroyed) he had over 300 men with him that were on his payroll. That many people can watch over HUGE herds but even if they only had 10 animals to watch over per man, this is 3000 head of various animals. Heck, even if he hired a man for EACH ANIMAL, he still has a herd of 300. That is not super rich but certainly not poor. There is no way that anyone would expect to take a wife without a dowry unless his family was very very poor! Yet we have no idea why Jacob arrives without a dowry.The film postulates that he did have a dowry but that he lost it on the way. This occurs when Jacob sees a man tracking him and fears either his brother or an assassin on his brother's behalf (it is a brother in-law of Esau) and Jacob hurries up a hill with his donkey holding him back. The dowry is packed on the donkey and falls off the hill down to where the assassin is chasing, who after all was most interested in killing him to steal the dowry. This made a lot of sense because I can't figure out any other reason why Jacob would show up without a dowry, knowing his sole purpose was to take a wife and the only other factor was yes, the timing was more urgent because of the fight with Esau.Another thing I appreciated was a scene soon after he loses the dowry. In the Bible, there is a dream Jacob has about the ladder (known as "Jacob's ladder", and it is symbolic for Christ as the bridge that joins Heaven and earth). The digital effects that were used to depict this though not especially fancy, I thought they were just right in that they were beautiful without being too fancy or "showy" the way so many effects people in modern film seem to over-do their scenes at times. This was a beautiful shimmering golden ladder that came down to the stone lined path that Jacob was following until he laid down to sleep that evening.The rest of the film was done just as well in following the Bible closer than most screenplays manage, even with a topic as important as the Bible. All of the actors handled several complex situations just right. I don't think I could improve on the screenplay without making it far more complicated so obviously that is unfair of me to expect anything better. The pace even seemed roughly the same as in the Bible in that they glossed over sections we don't know as much about and expanded really only when the detail was available with the only exception as I indicated (the dowry).The only other way for me to rate this film higher would be for them to somehow make it more interesting, but them that is hypocrisy for me to ask for authenticity and entertainment! The story is what it is. I am rating it an outright 8 as a film and a 10 for a Biblical adaptation. I feel that the production values (the lighting, balance, score etc. things that are normally ignored by most unless they are annoyed by it) were also just right. I just realized that I saw a pack of I think 6 Bible film adaptations and they were all really excellent. It contained all of the best adaptations together, except for "Jesus of Nazareth" (which I have on VHS and is worth buying on its own). The 6-pack includes the story of Saul and David (either 2 separate films by era or probably originally a mini-series), I think it does contain the classic film from the '50s, "The 10 Commandments" (some consider it the best Bible adaptation of all but I think several from this 6-pack are better) and if I find the site I will post comments again. It looks really worth owning.I don't want to set anyone's expectations too high.. As I have said, this is not the most interesting story to some people but if you go in to it with that in mind I think you will be pleasantly surprised.