But my point is the very opposite. You have many who are very much under the non-Catholic "shingle" rallying to this film.
(The movie did not show that) the veil was rent in twain in the holy of the holies, from top to bottom. . . man, now had access to the Heavenly Father through Christ, and no more blood sacrifices,
This is a very good point you are making here. The post-crucifixion earthquake damage depicted within the temple conveyed this somewhat. But your broader point --access to the Father -- may not have been conveyed as strongly. But here I think that you run up against the limitation of movie-making.
Did the movie adequately represent the deity of Christ in the person of the actor? Obviously not. On the other hand, there were contemporaries of Christ who did not behold that deity when they were in the very presence of our Lord.