[Scott from the Left Coast]

My wife and I talked about the resurrection depiction and decided that we felt that aspect was just right as well. Any more of it would have created the danger of becoming smarmy or phoney -- because there is no way to accurately or convincingly portray an event for which there is no point of reference or comparison. I think any more would have either gone over-the-top (ascending-into-the-clouds cliche)or taken the film from its raw reality into something of the realm of sci-fi. No one can depict something like that, something for which we have nothing in our experience to relate it to. That's why all the other renditions of it that have been attempted look cheap and almost laughable.

I think Gibson did it right. He rolled the stone away from the dark into ever-day, showed the shroud billowing like an empty parachute and then a picture perfect Jesus standing and walking away, with only the spike scar on his hand as the reference point. He left the event with its unique dignity that way.

[My back yard]

Well said. But there are 3 significant parts that deserve equal treatment on any depiction that attempts them at all; He suffered, He died, and very especially He arose. You make a good point about the first two are within the realm of our comparison, and the third is just not.