Replies

I liked it.

I was initially very skeptical that Hollywood could produce such a movie - but they did a good job.

I also admit that I am very uneasy with those who make images of God (Jesus Christ - God the Son), but in this case they had to do it for the movie. The film's fictional central character (Clavius the Tribune) stares at a very dead Jesus on the Cross, and then a week later he is staring at a very alive Jesus face to face. As they say, nothing is the same afterwards. And this also serves as a backdrop of the central question of: 'What think ye of Christ?'.
One of the tomb guards thought nothing - and went his merry way ignoring what he had seen.
The other guard was very troubled. He wanted to 'not believe' - but his eyes had told him something else - and he was trying to distract himself with the pleasures of the world (in this case drinking himself into a stupor) to ignore what he knew to be true.
Then you had the case of Pontius Pilate - a troubled man, but solidly going the way that the world beckoned.
And finally the Tribune. A battle-hardened cynic who came face to face with an 'impossibility' but dealt with it like a man, rather than ignoring it, or running away from it.

Overall, a good movie. My only complaint, would be I agree with my son who said that the Apostle Bartholomew looked like some surfer hippy type. Granted, maybe he did look like a surfer hippy type - and I'm an old grouch. But he was likable, and provided some comic relief. He just needed a haircut...

But all in all, the movie covered the items that the Apostles first preached:
Christ died.
Christ was buried.
Christ IS Risen.

And nothing is the same as it was before...

Ah - one more complaint I had forgotten.
There is no statement in the Bible, nor is it likely, that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Yes, she had been possessed by seven devils, but this is not the same as being a prostitute. I think some early Pope had conflated the 'sinner' woman of Luke 7 (who washed the Lord's feet with her hair and tears) with Mary. It didn't affect the movie, but it was propagating unnecessary slander.