Maria Maddalena

This movie was very well done. It was a handsome production, the cinematography was very lovely, the acting was quite good and overall I would say it was a decent depiction of a tiny little chapter of the life of Christ. I wished they had spent a little more time developing his persona, his following, the conversion of the crowds and perhaps his miracles, something to give us a better feel for the evolution of this great saint. One of the issues I have with the depictions of saints is that it's very difficult for most actors to play a sense of joy, exaltation, omniscience and to convey the kind of consciousness these Prophets and great Saints experience. That aside, it was a reasonably good portrayal of a an extremely brief period of this great man's life and the ultimate finale.

Mary Magdalene is story of the woman who is known in many Christian traditions as the "apostle to the apostles". Mary is a central figure in later apocryphal Gnostic Christian writings, which portray her as Jesus's closest disciple and the only one who truly understood his teachings. In this film, Mary Magdalene's closeness to Jesus results in tension with the other disciples, particularly Peter, as the film highlights the fact that women in Judaean society were considered inferior to men.

It's a 2 millennium old story for our times and director Garth Davis casts a perfect Rooney Mara as the intelligent, independent thinking Mary, who is drawn away from a life of midwifery and arranged marriage in her small fishing village, to following and seeking inspiration from the quietly charismatic Jesus, played convincingly by Joaquin Phoenix.

The Italian locations dutifully and realistically stand in for the countryside around the Sea of Galilee and Jerusalem and the film is produced with obvious reverence for its subjects.It succeeds in conveying the collective Jewish belief and yearning for the coming of a Messiah, a powerful political leader who would unite the tribes of Israel into standing up against the yolk of Roman oppression.

Unfortunately the pacing of this film, which is not overfilled with dialogue at the best of times, is frequently glacial in nature. There are countless silent pauses where various characters gaze soulfully, sometimes mournfully, into each others' eyes. Mary is an entrancing character, but her story, both biblically and as played out in this movie, is just frustratingly sparse. We want to be given more details about her life story, but it just doesn't occur and it is pretty clear that both female script writers were never intent on veering away from their various Gospel sources of reference. As such, momentum falters alarmingly, especially during the second act, where Mary is sidelined as a bit player to Jesus's wandering mission. We end up being left with a long, but ironically too lean and somewhat bland story of the woman who is becoming more recognised as the 'First of the Apostles". I think she deserved a story more inspiring and energetic than Mary Magdalene ends up being.

Trying to do the impossible is not going to end well. How does one tell a convincing, fulfilling story by editing out 75% of the story ? I'm sure the players of this effort all considered this BEFORE attempting the production. And what we get is an UNfulfilling story that leaves us with a sophomoric aftertaste. Rooney is always a standout in anything she does, based primarily on her unique beauty and unique persona, both of which give MARY focus of our attention. Phoenix is an odd choice-I agree, but his characterization of JESUS is a FRESH take, the freshest since-The Last Temptation of Christ-Scorsese/Dafoe 1988. Mary is not nearly as provocative as The Last Temptation, and does get across to us the theme of Mary. That is- she is the Apostle of all Apostles, and quite a rarity by revealing that women of that time were just forbidden to act so independently-by forsaking the family/community/Society wishes for her/women., Also-this abstract of a story also has a surprising climax that pushes home the ultimate message of the movie. But-this profound message is so understated and comes and goes so quickly..this message may even miss the ears/hearts of many viewers. The only thing that truly ressonates at curtain closing, is that this movie was well performed and allowed us a NEW look into a most intriguing, fascinating story....if only it was more COMPLETE..told us more. Perhaps this should have been a Netflix mini-series. Yes-indeed- should have been a mini-series.

I know, I know its supposed to be about Mary, and it does a little bit of that, but it is also very much about how she sees Jesus. She sees him as a man carrying around the weight of the world on his shoulders, and she understands his true message when many miss it. In this way she serves a blank slate that we the audience can become.

She understands Jesus' true meaning behind the words in a way that only those outside of the story can. She as well as Jesus' mother both know that a gristly fate awaits him - just as we do.

I spent some time looking through the reviews, - many of the most negative reviews are arguing that it gets a lot wrong. So I wanted to argue a few of their points:

One reviewer says its wrong because Jesus didn't baptize Mary. The truth is we don't know. John 3:22 says Jesus spent some time baptizing, but then John 4:2 says Jesus wasn't baptizing, it was his disciples, but both of these moments are about Jesus' time in Judea - not Galilee, where Mary was likely baptized. It seems like in larger groups of baptisms, Jesus would have had his disciples share the work, and in a personal moment like baptizing Mary, (who many have suggested was funding these excursions), its likely in my mind that Jesus would have baptized her.

The same reviewer said that this film refutes that she had 7-demons cast out of her by Jesus (Luke 8:2). This is wrong by all accounts of Luke 8 that I can see. The Bible doesn't say Jesus cast the demons out. The Bible says that traveling with him included Mary who had had 7 demons cast out. The film shows her family attempting to cast demons out of her, and then Jesus sees her and says he sees no demons. This seems to fit well within the possibility of scripture.

It bothers me when people use scripture to try to refute or prove things. If you pull just a single line, you're missing the picture. And just because someone can quickly reference scripture, does not make them right.

Several said Jesus should appear in his early thirties. Again, we don't know. He was most likely between 33-36. The only mention in the Bible says he was younger than fifty.

Some people thought nobody looked semitic, but the Levant was one of the big melting pots, and there's not a lot of research on where all the white people were in 33 AD.

I agree they shouldn't have made Peter acting all righteous and jealous as he was in the Book of Thomas. Why must we tear someone down in order to lift another up? Also the trope of Angry Black Man... no thanks. Many called this a politically correct take on Jesus - and I'd argue that for this reason above that this was far from politically correct, and only reinforces bad stereotypes about gender and color.

Still one of my favorite films, hope this is useful for someone.

Well I really wanted to love it, but I couldn't. I had been waiting for this to come out ever since it unexpectedly got shelved during the whole Weinstein fiasco. I finally saw it on Good Friday l, at the only Bay Area theater that was showing it - in San Jose - which surprised me.

I did love the premise, and I thought a movie from Mary Magdalene's point of view was a great idea. But I couldn't feel a connection to the characters. It seemed Phoenix's Jesus was at times too angry and distant. The editing seemed off too. Scenes jumped from one to another and I found myself yawning a few times. But Mara did a great job. I gave it a 7.