The Apostle Peter: Redemption (2016) User Reviews

Good intentions, but poor directing

[wanitajayne · 6/10 · 12 April 2017]

I wanted this to be a really good movie, if not bordering on excellence. I have the deepest respect for John Rhys-Davies and Stephen Baldwin and have followed both of their careers for a long time. The world needs quality movies with a sound Judeo- Christian message. While the content of the script may relay a historical account, the directing leaves this movie flat. Rhys-Davies is okay with his portrayal of an aged and tempered Peter, however the character of Nero is flat and one-dimensional. If anyone has studied the psychology of Nero, he was a total whack job. However, Steven Baldwin is locked into a flat and monotone portrayal. It leaves the film unengaging when in reality it should be electrifying. There should be multi-dimensional emotions portrayed because of the situations scripted. Yet, love scenes, betrayals, devisiveness and malcontent are all portrayed in a very flat tone. The only portrayal that gives depth is that of Poppaea. The interjection of scripture is touching in regards to I Corinthians 13, but it isn't enough to carry the theme of the movie. I really had hoped for more, but i am disappointed. Nonetheless, for a historical account of the times this would suffice.

Only half

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 2 July 2020]

The Apostle Peter: Redemption is half of a really good movie. : This is a story of the conflict between two protagonists St. Peter and the Emperor Nero.

John Rhys-Davies steps into a fine tradition ofplayers who have done justice to Peter in movies. We're talking folks like Howard Keel, Finlay Currie, and Michael Rennie all who made Peter a vital character as does Rhys-Davies. Ths was definitely a man who labored in his early days before being called as a disciple.

Wouldst I could say the same for Stephen Baldwin's somewhat catatonic portrayal of the Emperor Nero. After such classic performers as Charles Laughton and Peter Ustinov as Nero, Baldwin comes off distinctly second rate.

It's not a bad film just not really good

Powerful message

[TVFilmReviewer · 27 August 2016]

Peter: The Redemption(2016)is obviously a faith based film. It is a slightly fictionalized version during the latter years of the Apostle Peter's life. When Nero blamed the Christians for burning Rome. The blanks were filled in to make an interesting film that kept within the framework of biblical accounts.

I was pleasantly surprised to see the quality of actors involved in this. Peter is played by John Rhys-Davies who brings a powerful level of earnestness in his portrayal. Stephen Baldwin has become a staple in faith films for quite a few years. In this role, Baldwin plays evil emperor Nero with an unhinged fervor that works. A surprising addition was that of the lovely Bobbie Phillips, who was a television staple in the nineties. Phillips plays empress Poppaea with a complicated subtlety that makes her character one of the film's most intriguing. The crucial balancing act she carries between the relationships and self preservation in the film are meticulously conveyed.

This film weaves in a fictional tale of a young servant girl, played well by newcomer Brittany Bristow and her witness to a young guard played by Steve Byers. Byers also turns in a sincere and solid understated performance.

Without a large Hollywood budget, this is not the epic look of MGM's 1951 multi Academy Award nominated Nero tale. However, the story by John Patus, direction by Leif Bristow and solid performances come together for a good and quite powerful story of faith.

I couldn't be objective.

[robertomenjoulou · 1/10 · 30 May 2017]

Although the scenery is well adapted and the costumes are correct, there are details in exteriors, in furniture, in individual appearances that denote fiction. But what bothers me the most, in my opinion, is the affected, overacted, flawed and appalling performance of Stephen Baldwin, a character who prints an unpleasant profile, a dirty look and a lack of expressiveness notoriously used to disguise his poor histrionic gifts. The character fails to take off in his role, and by his appearance could well be a servant of the own Neron. The physical type does not adapt and the haircut is strange -to be a Roman is not to make a hem of hair glued to the forehead-, those lines of beard or is not well known that have nothing to do with the character and the static and empty faces (empty, without return to the audience), the body completely still with the arms fallen to the sides, the tone badly affected of the voice, they provoke nothing more than to be seeing permanently to Baldwin acting lousy and never to Nero, and this effect is transferred to the rest of the actors, to which one begins to look at his performance and never sees the character. A pity, taking everything to make a great production. The casting was not right and gives the impression that actors were hired for their low cachet rather than for their talent and bearing. I'll try to see her again.

Poor Imitation of Quo Vadis

[cgaver · 3/10 · 20 April 2019]

Despite the title, most of the movie focuses on the love interest between a Roman soldier and a slave in Nero's household - in other words, the same plot as in Quo Vadis.

Unfortunately, that leads to a lot of comparisons between the two movies and this one falls flat each time. Baldwin's Nero is wooden, one dimensional - the polar opposite of Peter Ustinov's brilliant portrayal of an unhinged Caesar. The Roman soldiers are not convincing as soldiers who had conquered much of Europe and the Middle; Susanna, as the young slave girl is OK but never comes across as someone with the strength of character to challenge a centurion. The only interesting character is Caesar's wife, Poppaea.

Watch it if you must - and then watch Quo Vadis and see what this movie could have been.

Don't kill him.

[nogodnomasters · 3/10 · 9 October 2017]

The film is supposed to be inspirational, following the final days of Peter the Apostle, based on church belief he died in Rome at the hands of Nero. We get flashbacks of Peter's denials, apparently the need for redemption. The film was poorly made, like an Asylum made for TV production. Baldwin was a laugh as Nero. Did Rome have all those blondes? Jesus is shown crucified, no thieves on either side. The sets looked cheap and artificial. As there are no historical records of Peter's death in Rome (don't blame me) they had to add fictional characters and make them prominent as if they were real. The poor execution and acting makes the inspirational aspect difficult to take. Did Peter bleach his teeth?

This movie was really a challenge to practice what my faith preaches.

[MacaroniJudas · 2/10 · 25 February 2024]

Let me be absolutely frank with you, this movie isn't great. In extensive truth, it is actually quite dreadful. The acting is wooden and contrived, the plot is brittle, floppy, and predictable; the whole thing is just extremely cheesy and painful to watch. Baldwin, who portrayed Nero just proved how much he was phoning it in for a check. His adaptation was lifeless enough that you could have replaced him with a cardboard cutout, and I wouldn't have noticed. This movie left me so dissatisfied; I went to church to request for forgiveness for wasting some of the time on this Earth that God gave me. I loathe condemning something that was clearly a labor of love, but this movie had the same effect as a stale sweaty cheese sandwich. The script sounded like something a 3rd grader would write with an unimaginative adaptation to what it was inspired by, to boot. The characters are flat and one-dimensional, and the production value is extremely sub-par. The editing and cinematography are lackluster. All in all, it lacks any real depth or substance, and the whole thing is just quite boring and forgettable. May St. Peter forgive us all for this abomination.

I'm sorry, it was Dreadful...

[markgmercer · 31 August 2016]

They gave it a shot, I'll give them that. But it was just dreadful. Where to begin. Everything was too clean. I mean Spic n' Span clean. The time period depicted was dirty, filthy and disgusting, but that didn't get in the way of a clean movie set. Even the Cross they crucified Jesus on was brand new from The Home Depot. The prison cells were spotless, and even had a bed for poor Peter. Even the prisoners were clean for cryin' out loud! Even with all that cleanliness, you'd hope there would be some acting that was gritty, edgy....even something that resembled acting. No my friends, there was none to be found. A sanitized script played by sanitized actors doing their best to stay clean. It's a shame really. I have a fair bit of respect for John Rhys-Davies acting abilities. I have little to none for the vast majority of today's actors, (so-called) even contempt. As for the failure for this film, I blame the Director, the Script writer and the cleaning lady. (I'll be surprised if they recoup the 2.7 mil budget)