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.

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.

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.

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.