Kirpianuscus Omar Shariff does a good job. that is the first verdict after the end of film. a film who propose , in 197 minutes, not a religious lesson but a circle of stories. and who propose a different Saint Peter, more humble, kind and, maybe, wise. it is touching and convincing. it is beautiful and credible. and propose an inspired manner to discover the Christianity in its essence. that is the rare gift who impose this film as a trip in the manner to assume the faith. Saint Peter of Omar Shariff is vulnerable and looking the right answer to his brothers and sisters in faith. he becomes a guide for community as result of his fear, doubts, need to be the disciple of the Lord who is not only the model but the only real solution to assume the challenges.and that does Peter not the first Pope, the saint or the first apostle but a kind of country priest from the novel of Bernanos. his success is different by the character of the French writer. the purpose is the same. and that detail does the film beautiful. the dialog, the patience, the atmosphere, not real different by the atmosphere of many Christian films but more subtle and warm for send the message in right manner. a film about the build of faith. and the birth of Church.

Armand at first sigh- a biblical movie as many others. at the second - a touching story who gives to Omar Sharif the opportunity to build a special character, exploring its nuances, proposing a different Peter, using sensitivity for create not only the image of the Apostle but, more important, powerful silence's slices. a film who not convince but reminds. a film about mission, duty, choice and sacrifice. the delicacy of Peter's portrait is the great virtue of a film who propose a different manner to discover Jesus. a film about purpose of life, it is almost a kind of poem. for its music, for landscapes and for the role of nuances. interesting. and useful. powerful. and seductive. a film who reminds the old art of Omar Sharif in inspired manner.

Movie Watcher This movie was not a good adaptation but it was the effort that counted. Why don't they get actual Jews to these movies? There were a lot of important pieces that should have been here. I know that time was an issue, but some events should have been included. The actions or events that Peter witnessed should have been included. The exact portrayal of how Cornelius and his family was saved was inaccurate in this movie. John the Baptist and the Apostles did full submersions according to the Jewish ritual for cleanliness, but this movie did what some Roman do which is baptize by sprinkling. Any movie that is made to honor the Lord should be close to scripture so that if non-believers see it, they can get a sense of what the Bible speaks.

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.