The Apostle Peter: Redemption

The Apostle Peter: Redemption is half of a really good movie. : This is a story of the conflict between two protagonists St. Peter and the Emperor Nero.

John Rhys-Davies steps into a fine tradition ofplayers who have done justice to Peter in movies. We're talking folks like Howard Keel, Finlay Currie, and Michael Rennie all who made Peter a vital character as does Rhys-Davies. Ths was definitely a man who labored in his early days before being called as a disciple.

Wouldst I could say the same for Stephen Baldwin's somewhat catatonic portrayal of the Emperor Nero. After such classic performers as Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov as Nero, Baldwin comes off distinctly second rate.

It's not a bad film just not really good

I wanted this to be a really good movie, if not bordering on excellence. I have the deepest respect for John Rhys-Davies and Stephen Baldwin and have followed both of their careers for a long time. The world needs quality movies with a sound Judeo- Christian message. While the content of the script may relay a historical account, the directing leaves this movie flat. Rhys-Davies is okay with his portrayal of an aged and tempered Peter, however the character of Nero is flat and one-dimensional. If anyone has studied the psychology of Nero, he was a total whack job. However, Steven Baldwin is locked into a flat and monotone portrayal. It leaves the film unengaging when in reality it should be electrifying. There should be multi-dimensional emotions portrayed because of the situations scripted. Yet, love scenes, betrayals, devisiveness and malcontent are all portrayed in a very flat tone. The only portrayal that gives depth is that of Poppaea. The interjection of scripture is touching in regards to I Corinthians 13, but it isn't enough to carry the theme of the movie. I really had hoped for more, but i am disappointed. Nonetheless, for a historical account of the times this would suffice.

Although the scenery is well adapted and the costumes are correct, there are details in exteriors, in furniture, in individual appearances that denote fiction. But what bothers me the most, in my opinion, is the affected, overacted, flawed and appalling performance of Stephen Baldwin, a character who prints an unpleasant profile, a dirty look and a lack of expressiveness notoriously used to disguise his poor histrionic gifts. The character fails to take off in his role, and by his appearance could well be a servant of the own Neron. The physical type does not adapt and the haircut is strange -to be a Roman is not to make a hem of hair glued to the forehead-, those lines of beard or is not well known that have nothing to do with the character and the static and empty faces (empty, without return to the audience), the body completely still with the arms fallen to the sides, the tone badly affected of the voice, they provoke nothing more than to be seeing permanently to Baldwin acting lousy and never to Nero, and this effect is transferred to the rest of the actors, to which one begins to look at his performance and never sees the character. A pity, taking everything to make a great production. The casting was not right and gives the impression that actors were hired for their low cachet rather than for their talent and bearing. I'll try to see her again.

Despite the title, most of the movie focuses on the love interest between a Roman soldier and a slave in Nero's household - in other words, the same plot as in Quo Vadis.

Unfortunately, that leads to a lot of comparisons between the two movies and this one falls flat each time. Baldwin's Nero is wooden, one dimensional - the polar opposite of Peter Ustinov's brilliant portrayal of an unhinged Caesar. The Roman soldiers are not convincing as soldiers who had conquered much of Europe and the Middle; Susanna, as the young slave girl is OK but never comes across as someone with the strength of character to challenge a centurion. The only interesting character is Caesar's wife, Poppaea.

Watch it if you must - and then watch Quo Vadis and see what this movie could have been.

Let me be absolutely frank with you, this movie isn't great. In extensive truth, it is actually quite dreadful. The acting is wooden and contrived, the plot is brittle, floppy, and predictable; the whole thing is just extremely cheesy and painful to watch. Baldwin, who portrayed Nero just proved how much he was phoning it in for a check. His adaptation was lifeless enough that you could have replaced him with a cardboard cutout, and I wouldn't have noticed. This movie left me so dissatisfied; I went to church to request for forgiveness for wasting some of the time on this Earth that God gave me. I loathe condemning something that was clearly a labor of love, but this movie had the same effect as a stale sweaty cheese sandwich. The script sounded like something a 3rd grader would write with an unimaginative adaptation to what it was inspired by, to boot. The characters are flat and one-dimensional, and the production value is extremely sub-par. The editing and cinematography are lackluster. All in all, it lacks any real depth or substance, and the whole thing is just quite boring and forgettable. May St. Peter forgive us all for this abomination.