Claysaba
Excellent, Without a doubt!!
ShangLuda
Admirable film.
ActuallyGlimmer
The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.
Desertman84
Omar Sharif stars as devoted disciple Peter in director Guilio Base's TV movie entitled,"St.Peter" - a look at the tension that arose between the Christians and Romans following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.As a dedicated follower of Christ, Peter spreads the message of the Christians across the land, often staying only one step ahead of those determined to persecute him. As the tension between the Christians and the Romans grows, blood runs in the streets and the apostles lose St. Paul to crucifixion. On the road to Damascus,he comes face-to-face with a stranger who shows him the only way wherein he must put himself on the cross in order to bring peace to Rome.It was a great movie despite being more than 3 hours.It tells a story mainly of Peter.Aside from that,it also tells the story of the early Christians particularly the apostles,disciples and the risen Jesus.It may not be a powerful film but it still works as we get to appreciate Peter and his works.Sharif was perfect in the title role.
tjbrown527
I gave this 1 star...and the real Apostle Peter would have no doubt given it none. It was rarely faithful to the Book of Acts in any specifics, more than not going of on wild tangents.My wife rented this from netflix. The description said it was made for Italian TV, but I didn't do the math...this would appear to be a Roman Catholic based film. Portraying Peter as the "rock" that the Church was built on, mechanical repetition of the Lord's Prayer, the constant recital of the Sermon on the Mount and not the Gospel (which is what was done in Acts).The lip syncing bothered me as did some of the acting and editing, but the content is what really bothers me. As has been mentioned before, this really went wacko when they got to Rome.If this were a BIBLICALLY ACCURATE movie, I could easily sit for three hours, but this was a waste of time.If you want an accurate portrayal of the Apostles, get the Acts series from "The Visual Bible".This was basically a ride through fantasyland.
mtr0118
After seeing the 1981 made for TV film PETER AND PAUL, I wondered if any one could match or remake the story of early Christianity as adequately as SAINT PETER. Omar Sharif wasn't as bad as Peter like in the other biblical films he was been in in recent years. Johannes Brandhupp's Christ was OK after a fine performance in the resurrection scenes.The background and music was great.They should of shown a little bit more about Peter's relationship with Jesus much before his crucifixion.If you liked this film, you should watch PAUL THE APOSTLE and also THE APOCALPYSIS(Richard Harris). RAI LUX-VIDE really knows how to do biblicals.
Michael Nielsen (subfour1600)
I'm sorry to burst any religious bubbles here, but it was one of the most disappointing portrayals of this amazing time of Church history I have ever seen. I was very excited when I saw this film in the video store and with Easter coming up. I thought it would be a very appropriate for the time of year. I also was excited to see Omar Sharif as St. Peter and I thought this movie was going to be pretty good. Omar Sharif didn't disappoint, however, just about everything else did. With one exception: The cinematography, which was quite beautiful at times.However the acting was terrible. I was trying to figure out why their voices were out of sync, and I thought, "Oh well it's an Italian film." But Sharif's mouth as did other actor's seemed to be speaking English. There are few who looked like they were speaking another language (assume Italian) hence the dub, but the majority was terribly out of sync. It's listed as an English speaking film, so I don't know what happened. To be honest, I think "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" was in better sync.The direction was something to be desired. It almost seemed as if the director Giulio Base did one take on everything and said, "That'll work, let's fix it in post if needed". When it seemed that Base was trying to create an "individual moment", it only worked because of Sharif. However, with the dubbing/sync issues some of it was absolutely laughable. Especially whenever the character Mark (Possibly the Gospel Author) would cry (Which seemed to be more than my 3 year old daughter). It just wasn't believable.The story itself seemed relevant and historically plausible until we get to Rome and we're introduced to a fictional, forbidden, love story and to a fictional slave family, whose father is a masked gladiator. This is when the wheels fell off completely for me. The story moves into the realm of nonsense and it's unclear what is fact and what is fiction. In Rome, all of a sudden these two fictionalized B & C story lines are introduced after almost 90 minutes into the film. I didn't care about these people, I cared about Peter and Paul and wanted to know what happened to them, the other stories just seemed thrown in there by a studio or executive producers thinking we needed a love story. It was a distraction rather than an enhancement.If one of the underlying objectives of this film is to show Rome and St. Peter as the beginning of the Papacy and the establishment of the Holy See then this fictional tale of this family and the two forbidden lovers just deflates the authority of this story. In addition, the gladiator fight scenes looked like two 10 year-olds playing Power Rangers on their front lawn. The "out of the blue" conversion at the end of the Roman official who hated Peter and resisted Christianity the whole time is never addressed, but he's given the final words as St. Peter hangs from the cross to the effect, "All of Rome has changed because of you Peter". Why on earth would you allow that, in addition to people just sitting around as if Peter is being crucified in their living room? If this happened like this I don't know, but due to above mentioned fictional aspects of the film I doubt the scenes accuracy. The only aspect that I do know was true was Peter being crucified upside down and the words he used, which were beautiful "I am not worthy to die in same manner as our Lord".I don't even want to get started on the editing, which had no rhythm and pulled us out of scenes like smelling salt did to Apollo Creed in Rocky I & II. Editor Alessandro Lucidi as is Base, is no strangers to this genre. However if the director doesn't give you anything to cut out from to cut to then you're stuck with what you have I guess.The story was too spoon fed for me, almost written for a 12 year old audience. I would recommend the film for Catholic school students grades 4th – 8th. I don't think a lot of Evangelicals or Protestants would approve of the story due to its portrayal (however true it may be) of the establishment of Rome as the "Heart of Christ Church" as Sharif's St. Peter put it. However, maybe somehow the Holy Spirit can overcome the obstacles of this film and deliver the message it was trying to make to those mentioned above. I just think the filmmakers missed a great opportunity to deliver a powerful and true story. Peter and Paul keep talking about "The Truth" but in the context of this film "The Truth" comes into question. I have feeling the producers might have come into the edit bay after the director's cut and really messed this film up, because I can't buy that Base would make the decisions he made.
