Apóstolo Pedro e a Última Ceia

My family watched this during Passover/Easter week. The movie takes the perspective of Peter, relaying his experiences to a jailer as Peter spends his final fee days in prison. Peter recounts his meeting Jesus, some of the events of the ministry years, the Last Supper, and the Garden scene.

We watched this with our 6 year old, and would have no problems showing it to other children. Satan does appear a few times in the film, but not too scary.

The acting is well done and the scenes varied enough that it keeps the interest of even the children.

We highly recommend this film for you and your family.

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.

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.

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.

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.