Marie Madeleine

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

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.

The simple way of explaining this movie is imagine if Terence Malick filmed it, but he attempted to make the feel of it to be like a Tarkovskij film. I had a decent time watching "Mary Magdalene". You can look at the pictures and performances and see the beauty of the story. Yet, I hate to say it: It slows down and becomes un-eventful too many times. The director Garth Evans went the melancholic route were you are supposed to feel like you are wandering the landscapes with Jesus and his apostles. The world is a silent and lonely one, and there's barely much happiness going on. Jesus may spread wisdom, hope and kindness. Although here he keeps that sad stare as if something is troubling him. I think it was supposed to symbolize serenity, but it made him seem more depressed. Every adaptation of the Jesus story presents a different interpretation and here again, they give you a slightly sorrowful looking Joaquin Phoenix. He wasn't bad at all though. Just somewhat distracting at first because I kept thinking of his character in "Inherent Vice". As the movie progressed I got used this version. So it was alright. You can't hate Phoenix any way. He's a nice guy. Rooney Mara is wonderful as Mary. She carries a lot of this movie as its told from her perspective. I enjoyed her interaction with the rest of the apostles as well as her mutual respect and connection to what Jesus wanted to say. She struggles in the difficult world, but maintains that inner warmth that you need when you comfort someone in need.

I think the film is OK. The slow parts drag and there are only so many melancholic stares you can endure before you go: "Come on, guys. I get it". It's supposed to a realistic approach. You hear the sounds of nature and the breeze of the wind as you wander the fields with short grass. All of that is nice. But it's constantly dramatic and quiet. I wanted to see some more kindness and optimism to show us more nuances from the characters. You've seen the Jesus story be told many times and here's another one. It's not bad, but it lacked a special punch of uniqueness. I think "Last Days in the Desert" handled the quiet melancholic version of the tale better. This is not a bad attempt, but more of an underwhelming one. It's beautiful to look at and you have nice people who you follow. But it leaves you feeling more empty than you should. I respect what Mary Magdalene did and I'm happy I got to understand her perspective. But I don't think I ever have to see this entire movie again. Only recommended to loyal fans of the people involved making the film and those who are interested in the different adaptations the Jesus story.

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.