L'Apostolo Pietro e l'Ultima Cena

I was a bit skeptic about the casting for the title role. Here we have Robert Loggia who has played a drug lord in "Scarface", Feech in "The Sopranos", Sallie in "Innocent Blood" and last but not least the Mr. Eddy/Dick Laurent in David Lynch's "Lost Highway". Can he really pull off the role of the second most important figure in Christianity? The answer is a resounding yes.

It's obvious that the production ran on a very low budget. You can count on one hand how many settings there are. However what it lacks in settings and special effects it makes up with acting and a solid script. Here we have Robert Loggia playing Peter in chains in Rome and the dungeon guard Martinius starts to converse with him about Jesus and his last days. Loggia gives a great performance as an old Peter ready to die, but still finding strength and joy in telling about his last days with Jesus. As mentioned before the production seems very low budget, there are no scenes where we see Jesus flogged, going through Via Dolorosa and get crucified and resurrected. So while it may have to do with a low budget, the fact is that Peter did not witness the flogging and crucifixion so from a historical point of view it seemed fine to leave out those scenes.

The title of the film really expresses who the film is about: the apostle Peter and his view, thoughts and feelings during the last days of Jesus and his teachings. A critique against it is that there are a couple of really unnecessary scenes where the Devil tries to tempt Peter in jail. Those should have been cut since they serve no purpose whatsoever. Thankfully, they are few and very short. I have to complain as well about the poorly made CGI shots of the city.

The acting from the supporting actors is done fantastic as well, especially Martinius and his wife. All in all this film is really about the message of Peter to the Romans. It's an interesting script with solid acting that really highlights and underlines the message -- not necessarily the content itself -- of Easter in the Christian tradition. I'd watch this film instead of "The Passion" anytime and I hope it picks up a following.

It is so refreshing to see a movie about Christianity that is well created and the acting is amazing. So many times you have to look past the acting and videography to enjoy the message of the film. Not in the case. You get it all.

Wonderful film. Barely any violence. I feel that even my smallest child could watch this and be just fine. You get the full impact of Christ's love and message without actually having to see the Passion (which those with small children try to avoid).

An absolutely gem. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone even wondering about God's love.

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.

What can I say? It is a great Christian movie, made by secular people. It is indeed surprising how a director, who promotes artwork on his very own website which is clearly satanic, has the motivation for such a movie.

Does a director of a Christian movie need to be Christian? No, he doesn't, but it is hypocrisy to do something just for the money.

Should a director of a Christian movie be a Christian? Yes, that is what makes sense.

Can a director of a Christian movie promote the other side while doing this and several other popular Christian movies? Only in America ...

PROS

+ Great depictions of an extra-biblical story, which tells in parts biblical elements. Obviously, a great creative license is taken, but the movie does not equal to an apocryphal book which someone wants to insert into the Bible.

+ It is beautiful how they portrayed Peter, without the least of fear before his death.

+ Beautiful end with the conversion of two soldiers and one's wife.

CONS

• The movie tries hard to impress through extreme tonality in voices and by excessive music.

• The satan character is certainly not what the Bible describes as a wolf in sheep's clothing. He does not come anywhere close to a 'sheep' in human terms, but is the typical Hollywood scheme to make things appear more extreme ...

• It would have been nice if they would have made at least for some scenes their way out of the LA studios and filmed in an actual setting - be it in Israel or similar.

• The prayer 'you sanctified us with your commandments' shows a fundamental lack of Bible knowledge. We might walk on the road of sanctification while obeying commandments, but we are not sanctified with commandments ...

• When the two Roman soldiers become Christians under Peter's hand (which is beautiful), smoke comes up and eastern meditation music is played. It looks and sounds more like a conversion to Buddhism, if the words would not have been different.

• Peter could have only died in Rome long after the conversion of Saul to Paul. Nevertheless the movie states at the end that they have to empty the cell for a certain 'Saul of Tarsus'. That's why unbelievers should never do a Christian movie.

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.