- Awards
- 2 wins & 5 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
The 6 stars are for the actors, the quality of the images and the bravery to make a movie about such a controversial subject. I am sadden for the fact that the plot has so many holes that even being a Christian (myself) didn't help. Christ journey during his last 3 years on earth was so immeasurably profound it changes lives to this day, 2000 years after. I was expecting that bringing the role of Mary Magdalene into light would make a fabulous complement. It didn't.
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.
Great acting, great perspective, great story.
It is strange that this idea could put a bad taste into someones mouth- that it is OUR responsibility to save the world - pretty much the opposite message of "sola fide" - the doctrine introduced by the Lutheran church that it is only through faith in the divinity of Jesus alone and not through works we achieve "salvation". Centuries of self-identified "Christians" with no real love of peace, truth or compassion at the helm of the West and look where it has gotten us... millions of Christians await Christ's return yet make no serious effort to live by Christ's teachings. That is the sore thumb and the tragedy of many of the efforts of modern evangelists
Ironically, a movie that is supposed to be about Mary Magdalene is the best cinematic telling of the Jesus story that I have seen - it takes care to communicate understandably how Jesus's real teachings could become skewed by disciples who had their own ideas about the way they thought things should be, or would prefer them to be. They helped create in their folly a system of belief which removes personal responsibility and promotes complacent self righteousness in apathy which seems so common today.
The message of personal responsibility is so crucial in these times when it feels like the world is speeding ever so quickly towards irreversible change - where that change is directed is up to us and if we are all sitting on our thumbs we may neglect our own responsibility and contributions in the matter. That someone could be made angry or put off by this idea seems incomprehensible to me
It is strange that this idea could put a bad taste into someones mouth- that it is OUR responsibility to save the world - pretty much the opposite message of "sola fide" - the doctrine introduced by the Lutheran church that it is only through faith in the divinity of Jesus alone and not through works we achieve "salvation". Centuries of self-identified "Christians" with no real love of peace, truth or compassion at the helm of the West and look where it has gotten us... millions of Christians await Christ's return yet make no serious effort to live by Christ's teachings. That is the sore thumb and the tragedy of many of the efforts of modern evangelists
Ironically, a movie that is supposed to be about Mary Magdalene is the best cinematic telling of the Jesus story that I have seen - it takes care to communicate understandably how Jesus's real teachings could become skewed by disciples who had their own ideas about the way they thought things should be, or would prefer them to be. They helped create in their folly a system of belief which removes personal responsibility and promotes complacent self righteousness in apathy which seems so common today.
The message of personal responsibility is so crucial in these times when it feels like the world is speeding ever so quickly towards irreversible change - where that change is directed is up to us and if we are all sitting on our thumbs we may neglect our own responsibility and contributions in the matter. That someone could be made angry or put off by this idea seems incomprehensible to me
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaRooney Mara and Joaquin Phoenix started dating during the production of this film.
- GoofsWhen Mary Magdalen leaves the lake after being baptized, her wet dress is slightly opaque and clinging. The straps to her bra or bikini top are noticeable.
- Quotes
[first lines]
Mary Magdalene: And she asked him, "What will it be like? The kingdom?" And he said, "It is like a seed, a single grain of mustard seed, which a woman took and sowed in her garden. And it grew and it grew. And the birds of the air made nests in its branches."
- ConnectionsFeatured in Projector: Mary Magdalene (2018)
- SoundtracksPsalm 121
Traditional, arranged by Sophia Brous
Performed by Tchéky Karyo
- How long is Mary Magdalene?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- María Magdalena
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $124,741
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $46,646
- Apr 14, 2019
- Gross worldwide
- $11,710,110
- Runtime2 hours
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.20 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content