Apostle Peter and the Last Supper

No histories, biographies, or other books record the exact conversations and daily details of people. Beyond the general overview and summary of the lives of someone, any story put into a book or film necessarily includes much dialog that is made up. Serious and honest writers and movie makers will research their subject thoroughly from the records available, and then write and create characters and situations as true to the person as they can imagine.

So it is with characters from biblical times. Beyond what we read in the Bible, who knows what the apostles did and said, or what their lives were like after the death and resurrection of Jesus? In telling a story of any part of a Bible character's life, one must imagine what scenes and dialogs would be like to fill in details and expand on the printed record.

The makers of this film did a decent job in portraying Peter in his jail time in Rome before his execution. We see a Peter as many Christians might have visualized him over the centuries. We see Peter as he likely responded to the inquisitiveness of his guards. And what he might have said and how it might have affected his guards. Of course, he would talk about Jesus and witness to his life.

So, this is a good film from that standpoint. Robert Loggia is very good in the role of the elderly Peter. The rest of the fictitious characters are so-so. The brusk head-jailer seems overly acted. But other than the role of Peter, there's nothing noteworthy about this production. As one other reviewer noted, the CGI scenes of rooftops looking down on a city are not helpful to the story. If anything, they are a distraction – a reminder that this probably is a cheap production. Why they couldn't have taken some stock footage of scenes shot on movie sets used before is beyond me. Or staged some scenes in old towns with people dressed according to the time. The still, misty view of CGI rooftops of a town look like something from a comic book. They are so phony that they detract from any effort to portray an authentic situation.

This film has a feel of staginess. How much might it have cost to have a couple of segues to show a street or alley scene with people coming and going outside the jail? With nothing else noteworthy about this film, I give it just six stars.

A movie obviously inspired by God and those who love Him. I stand amazed in the genius of the story, the layout, the timing, and the acting. As with all true messages about the Gospel, it tugs at you, draws you in and opens your heart to whatever the Holy Spirit would have you consider about your own walk. I have watched it several times, have ordered the DVD with the intent to show it to my entire church. However I truly believe that the true value of this work is getting it before the eyes and hearts of the lost around us. Thanks to all who played a part in bringing this beautiful account out into the open to truly enrich our lives.

it is easy to criticize it. low budget, not great performances, sketches of Biblical accuracy. but it has two great virtues - Robert Loggia as Saint Peter and the status of story for the child from yourself. Robert Loggia does an admirable role , proposing a Peter near the death , wise, vulnerable, strong and with the precious desire to birth his faith as only memory. a dialog in a cell. images from the past who represents only real present. and the build of message. the film propose only the feeling of faith. without dramatic scenes, without powerful images or special effects. and this mistake does it credible. because it is not an adaptation, not a religious film but rediscover of the delicacy of same message of Church. and that does it not a great film, maybe not memorable. but useful. for the rediscover of a pillar of our civilization.

a religious film is not first an artistic matter. the basic purpose, the essence of message is for faith build/rediscover. in this case, the formula is little different. not only for admirable performance of Robert Loggia but for the manner to create the message. it is not exactly chronicle of events but remember of faith essence. a film about force, courage and vulnerability. with few small forced nuances but, in fact, convincing and deep touching. a film about delicate things. and beautiful lesson from a great actor to give entire brilliance and wise light to a special character. a religious film, off course. but not an ordinary one. because it has the gift to put/remind a lot of questions. because it is an example of measure and good work.

One of the finest Christians I have ever known used to say, "Little is much when God is in it." And that applies to Biblical movies. They should not be judged as ordinary entertainments, because their subject matter sets them apart, a priori, so that the usual standards and the ordinary expectations must be set aside. In reading the reviews, I see how easily one can say poor production, poor scenery, poor this and that. But I would suggest another standard, perhaps the only standard by which a film about Biblical events or Early Christianity can be judged: Did it give you a sense of deeper fellowship with the subject matter, and with those whose Faith has borne witness down through the ages to even touch us here and now? If it does, then it is a success. If it does not, perhaps that is less the movie's fault than the viewer's. I have been fascinated by the Early Christians (myself being what you might call a late Christian) since I was twelve years old---over half a century. When I watched this, my worldly cares, even my medical affliction, seemed to fall away and I was able to enter into a sense of fellowship with my spiritual ancestors. On that basis, the film is a resounding success, and nothing else from the mundane world of film reviewing matters.