User reviews

Mary Magdalene, according to the Gospels, was a follower of Jesus as one of his followers and was a witness to His crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. In Christian tradition she has frequently been described as a repentant prostitute, although there is no Biblical authority to support this theory or her identification with either the anonymous "sinful woman" who anoints Jesus's feet or with the equally anonymous "woman taken in adultery". There is also no evidence to support the theory occasionally put forward (e.g. in "The Da Vinci Code") that she and Jesus were married. Another assumption which has been made is that she was wealthy, and there is some Biblical support for this in that Luke refers to her supporting Jesus's ministry "out of her resources".

In this film, however, Mary Magdalene is a poor girl from Magdala on the Sea of Galilee. The real Magdala appears to have been a sizeable and prosperous town, but here it is depicted as a small and impoverished fishing village. She becomes a follower of Jesus, but her presence in His circle is not always welcomed by His male disciples. This is not simply a question of male chauvinism; there are also theological and ideological differences between Mary and the other disciples.

In the Gospels Judas Iscariot betrays Jesus for money, but it has become almost a cliché in New Testament biblical dramas to depict Judas as a Zealot, a freedom fighter hoping to liberate Judea from the control of the Roman Empire, an interpretation adopted in both "King of Kings" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told", even though there is no Biblical support for it. According to this interpretation Judas betrayed Jesus either in a bid to force Him to launch a Holy War against the Romans or out of disappointment that Jesus would not do so. This interpretation is followed in this film, except that here it is not just Judas who is a Zealot. All the other male disciples, especially Peter, hold similar views.

Mary Magdalene, however, is different. In a development again not found in the canonical Gospels (although it may derive some support from the non-canonical Gnostic Gospels) she is the only one who fully understands Jesus, that his is a message of peace and forgiveness, not of Holy War against the godless, and who helps to bring the male disciples (except Judas) round to this way of thinking.

There is nothing really wrong with Rooney Mara's performance in the main role, but she does not really stand out. The one outstanding performance comes from Joaquin Phoenix. Some might argue that Phoenix, aged 44 but looking considerably older behind that heavy beard, was too old to play Jesus, who died when He was only 33. Yet I think that there was probably a conscious decision on the part of the film-makers to get away from a young, handsome Jesus as portrayed by Robert Powell in "Jesus of Nazareth" or Jeffrey Hunter in "King of Kings" (aka "I Was a Teenage Jesus") and that the reasoning behind this decision was to downplay the idea that Mary's attraction to Jesus was sexual or romantic rather than spiritual. Phoenix gives us a deeply human Jesus, very different from traditional Christian ideas about the Second Person of the Trinity, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. This is no charismatic orator or commanding religious leader but a humble carpenter's son turned itinerant preacher, a man whose appeal is grounded not in blazing rhetoric or miraculous powers but in his humility and his faith in God, a faith which remains unshaken despite moments of doubt. The film is very different to the traditional large-scale Biblical epic. It appears to have been made on a relatively small budget, lacking the elaborate sets and costumes and the large-scale set-piece scenes of something like "The Greatest Story...". It is austere in its visual style and the characters mostly wear plain homespun garments appropriate to their humble origins. It can at times be ponderous and slow-moving, yet there is a rugged simplicity and sincerity about it which means that it is able to bring Christianity to life in a way which more grandiose productions (and here I am thinking particularly of "The Greatest Story...") are not. 7/10

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.

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.

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.

Lots of imagination. Very little actual scripture. Waters down a powerful story that diminishes the characters - including Mary Magdalene and her deliverance and contribution.

I do not believe in the bible or organized religion. I watched this movie because I love period movies and Joaquin Phoenix. It was so subtle. It did not beat you over the head with blood and pain like Passion of the Christ did. It showed Jesus conflicted, sad, angry, and scared. He somberly walked to his final days. He accepted a woman despite protests. Though the dialogue was sparse, I felt it more profoundly than any church sermon I have ever sat through. I was moved to sobs several times, especially in today's political climate. The acting was perfect, the scenery breath taking and it was beautifully quiet movie, definitely worth the watch.

The story of the last weeks of Jesus Christ told out of the perspective of the first ever feminist, Mary Magdalene. It is an interpretation of the bible and the new found redemption of Mary Magdalene by the Vatican in 2016. Rooney Mara plays the title role and gives quite a solid performance. The material given to her is rather limited, but mostly due to the fact the the film feels terribly edited and cut down. Its a good performance but nothing she will win awards for. Joaquin Phoenix plays Jesus. He did have some good moments but generally feels miscast. He played Jesus too rough and too edgy. I mean edgy is good, but he often felt like a homeless vagabond preaching around with his not less weird followers. Not quite Charles Manson like but close. Chiwetel Ejifor was fine but he was rather wasted except for his scene at the end. The film is very nice to look at. Cinematography is great. The whole look and feel is accurate and it has a nice score. It did feel too modern often . the way the talk, the way they gestured and Rooney Mara's pierced ears did not help. I really would like to see Garth Davis' uncut version of it.

This is not a movie for people who know the Bible. It was filled with errors and a lot of important things were left out. Now I understand why it's not in Danish cinemas! I had to take a ferry to Sweden to see it (It's only a twenty-minute trip). At least I had a nice day ...

Every scene in the movie, is seen through the perspective of Mary Magdalene. The ones who missed that, probably saw another film. Great casting and Ronney Mara´s best acting yet. Superb music, that made two hours seem like one. Amazing direction, which even surpasses that of "Lion" (2016). For the first time ever (for me at least), the audience did not leave the cinema until the end of the credits. I cried for nearly 120 minutes. There were different reasons for that: joy, sadness, inspiration, understanding and so forth. "Mary Magdalene" (2018) is truly a masterpiece and I can not recall, when something touched me in such a profound way.

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.

Despite the lukewarm/average reviews, part of me was very intrigued in watching 'Mary Magdalene'. The cast, with the talents of Rooney Mara, Joaquin Phoenix and Chiwetel Ejiofor and director were enough to want to see the film, and also wanted to see how the different perspective the film shows would fare.

'Mary Magdalene' turned out to be a disappointment and didn't really connect with me. For me, it is a difficult film to rate and review with obvious strengths and even more obvious problems. Can totally see the divisive reactions, why the rating here is not great, why it's garnered a lot of hate or mixed feelings here (as well the odd positivity) and why the critical reception was average, things that also made me apprehensive seeing the film.

Starting with the strengths, 'Mary Magdalene' on the most part looks wonderful. It's beautifully shot and has production design and costumes that are like looking at a painting. The music added a good deal to the atmosphere, with haunting moments and providing an emotional resonance that was not there elsewhere.

Rooney Mara is an expressive and affecting Mary, and while Joaquin Phoenix was a strange choice for Jesus his portrayal is both touching and intense. Chiwetel Ejiofor and particularly Tahar Rahim provide strong supporting turns. There are a few interesting ideas, like the betrayal by Judas.

However, there is not much new or illuminating here, even approaching the subject from a different viewpoint, and found myself never connecting with it emotionally. On that front 'Mary Magdalene' was a pretty cold and passionless experience.

A feeling that was further accentuated by rambling writing, curiously lethargic direction and a very elephantine pace where a lot of the film drags and feels self-indulgent. The ending was rushed, just as problematic when that is the point of the film where the emotion and passion should be strongest. The editing tended to be choppy, almost like there was more to the film that was cut down.

In summary, beautiful to look at and more than competently acted, but lacking emotional or dramatic impact and illuminating ideas and very dull. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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.

When making a film about Jesus and the people surrounding him, there are three choices: 1) Make it accurate according to scripture 2) Add some artistic-license drama to make the story come across better on the big screen, while still following the scriptural account 3) Make a totally bogus, made-up personal interpretation without any respect for the original accounts whatsoever.

Guess which one this is.

It is set in Judea, 33 AD, governing Herod Antipas, under brutal Roman rule, there lives Maria, Rooney Mara, a young woman from the village of Magdala, close to Galilea lake, who desires freedom, and autonomy. She wants to flee from the destiny and traditions reserved for the Jewish female. After rejecting a marriage engagement to Ephrain : Halevi , a family friend, Mary is harassed by his brother Daniel: Menochet and her father : Elisha : Tcheky Karyo, as they believe she is possessed. Then, Mary doesn't obey them, she escapes and amazed by the personality and charisma of a strange person, she joins this healer and mysterious figure, called Jesus : Joaquin Phoenix. And she, eventuality submits herself to his will as well as his holy teachings and each time pays more attention to Jesus and vice versa . Jesus is accompanied by the ordinary disciples as Peter : Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thomas : David Schofield, , John : Shtrauss, Mathew : Babaloa, Philip : Gavriel. But they feel jealous and disturbing for Mary 's presence in the group, thinking she weakens Jesus' messages. The various disciples walk with Jesus preaching his doctrines, his own words and his social revolution, despite they have their personal interest. Along the way and through Samaria territory , Jesus goes on delivering his provoking messages that will change the whole world. Finally, in Pascua celebration , Jesus and his followers arrive in Jerusalem where he will find his fateful fate. 12 disciples and one woman heard and spread the deep message of Jesus. According to Gospels, Mary Magdalene was in death and burying of Jesus and she is considered to be the first witness of his Resurrection. In 591year, Pope Gregorio declared Mary Magdala was a prostitute, a false idea that has prevailed until today. In 2016 Magdalene was identified as apostle of the apostles and the first messager of the risen Jesus.

A thought-provoking and religious film dealing with Jesus life from sight point his only female disciple : Mary Magdalene and made in "New Age" style . As Mary and mainly the spectators become involved into the astonishing teachings told by Jesus, his grateful speeches, his goodness and final sacrifice. The film is paced in "Gospel according to Saint Matthew" by Pier Paolo Pasolini and "Christ Passion" by Mel Gibson wake, more than "King of Kings" by Nicholas Ray and "The greatest story ever told" by George Stevens. Main and support cast are pretty good. Rooney Mara gives a nice and spiritual acting as the faithful young girl who rebels against usual traditions, avoiding to be only a wife and to have children. Joaquin Phoenix is frankly fine as a thoughtful Jesus who promises a kingdom of love and peace, free of oppression and hateful . That's why Mary follows to Christ in spite of the strong opposition his family. The motley group of apostles are finely acted by good actors, though mostly unknown, exception for David Schofield as Thomas and Chiwetel Ejiofor as the first African-American Peter, though long time ago Carl Anderson played an African-American Judas Iscariot in "Jesuschrist Supertar" .

It contains a sensitive and rousing musical score by Johann Johannsson and Guonadottir. As well as evocative and atmospheric cinematography by Greig Fraser. Shot on location in Italy, several locations as Trapani, Sicily, Naples Campania, Gravina di Puglia, Matera, Basilicata. This latter location Basilacata was also filmed Gospel according to Saint Matthew by Pier Paolo Pasolini and Passion of Christ by Mel Gibson. The motion picture was well and originally directed by Garth Davis in his second movie. His prior films were the successful Lion, and some Shorts and TV series. Rating 7/10. Better than average.

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

I find the story very poorly explained, and the pace is very slow. It is not helped by the characters speaking softly in a rambling manner, on the other hand ambient noises are loud. Unfortunately I just don't understand the plot. It could have been a biblical epic, but it ends up being a huge mystifying bore. I didn't get anything out of the film, and it is sad that the film became a waste of my time.

I wouldn't pay much attention to the low mark this film is receiving at present. I enjoyed it. Good performances, beautifully shot and a believable adaptation of the subject matter.

Got major details wrong, and some are even unacceptable. I personally felt offended as a Catholic. Read the Bible mate then make a movie about Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Made it look like Jesus and the magdalen had something going on between them!

Don't waste your time guys, read the Bible instead of spending two hours on this movie.

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.

719/5000 The film seems to me to be exalted for more than one issue in particular. Visual and aesthetically beautiful, the photography by Greig Fraser is more than polished, and contributes to the pair of music in the development and in making the viewer empathize with a Maria who deserved an apology after so long He took her as a prostitute. The performances of the main actors is impeccable; Mara, Phoenix, Rahim, Ejiofor, Karyo, Ménochet, all meet, the rest are only ornaments or extras. A slow movie that takes its time, at times seems to decay in its argument, but always hooks correctly again. A good new and refreshing proposal within the biblical cinema.

The 2018 version of Mary Magdalene was meant to be a retelling of the last days of Jesus Christ from her point of view It was meant to set the record straight and it does have some virtues - having a talented cast and some lovely cinematography. Mary Magdalene could have been a great well to revisit a classical Biblical story but sadly the director and writers did it in the most boring way possible because it is a film the doesn't have a lot about the role of women in the live of Jesus. It should have been better