Redundant and unnecessary.

i must have seen a different film!!

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

This film came out in the author, Catherine Marshall's lifetime, and we have her comments on it. She was overall very pleased. She considered that 20th Century Fox gave it a quality and credible handling. She thought Richard Todd did a fine job. She was, however, politely puzzled by the interpretation of herself by the actress, Jean Peters. Apparently, this was not a particularly welcome project for Ms. Peters, who gave no response to the usual functions and support of an actor for their picture, not attending the premier or anything of that nature. She resisted any friendly overtures from Mrs. Marshall while visiting the set during the filming, as the invited guest of the studio. All of this was opposite to the response of Mr. Todd, who was very gracious. Mrs. Marshall knew she had signed away her rights to affect the production, and did not attempt to interfere. Ms. Peters' portrayal was adequate as the young girl in love, but she was quite artificial in the marriage and ministry period. The boy who played the son was more alive and natural. She depicted Mrs. Marshall as either a simpering hanger-on or as sort of a weary worn, martyr type, who doggedly trudged through. If she read the book itself, she certainly missed the spark and proactive quality of the woman she was playing. Having read the book, along with others of Mrs. Marshall, I know that she was most enthusiastic and positive toward her life with Rev. Marshall and life in general. And, she was an active contributor. Her inner strength also won out as she faced her many personal challenges. If you have the interest, you might enjoy reading Catherine Marshall's book by the same name. As for the film, TCM ran it as part of a feature of Richard Todd, and FMC used to run it rather regularly.

I have always liked the late Richard Todd as an actor, he was very watchable and had real charisma and integrity. However this movie is just about the dullest biopic I have ever seen. From the very start it is less than convincing. Pure propaganda for the God squad who really should join the 21st century instead of living in the 13th century wracked with superstition and belief in miracles and magic. I had never seen this movie before and looked forward to becoming engrossed in a story about someone with whom I was totally unfamiliar. I tried, I honestly did, but my attention wandered and I could not stomach the holier than thou thread which pervaded this debacle. A pity it was not better written as I am sure there is an actual story to be told rather than this pap. Not a good movie to choose to see Richard Todd's talent.

A Man called Peter should be required viewing for all those considering joining the faith, and for those wanting to see intelligent films about religion or just basic Christianity. It succeeds where most of the 50s and 60s religious movies fail, in conveying rare depth of its subject matter. As another reviewer said, it feels like it's made by those in the church rather than Hollywood. And not only that, but it feels like it's just been made today. Which really means it holds up very well and that what it stands for is timeless. I loved its treatment of people and dialogue, especially at the end of the movie. Miss this at your own risk!

This was the most beautiful and most inspiring movie in Cinemascope of the 50s decade. Very well directed and a box office hit in rural America and other parts of the world (lines to see it formed around the block all over Scottland, but also in cities like Havana, Madrid, London, Dublin, etc.), yet the Academy of Arts and Science ignored it as best film and passed on nominations to its players. It won only one award for screenplay adaptation (from the best selling biography). The reason for this may have been that Jean Peters, its star, quit the screen all too suddenly after its release, and Fox made no effort to push or promote the film within the academy when nominations were being selected. Releasing companies normally do that. Richard Todd certainly delivered the best performance of his career in a very difficult role. The strikingly beautiful Jean Peters amazed critics with a down to earth and totally believable performance that certainly merited a best actress nomination. And Marjorie Rambeau (of Tobacco Road fame)won other awards as supporting actress for her portrayal(including Critic's Choice), but wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award. If you check the 1955 nominees for best acting, you'll discover that only Susan Hayward, for I'll Cry Tomorrow, was at par with Peters' portrayal in this flick. True of the film as well. It was a much better picture than most of those nominated. Fox had scheduled this film as the first in Cinemascope to be released, with Peters and Richard Burton in the lead roles, but producer Lamarr Troti died; and so, Fox offered The Robe as an alternative-which was an inferior film in regards to content, facts and script. At any rate, see this film believing it did win "best picture of 1955". As it ends you'll likely become certain that it did.