Other than to show that a woman called Mary who wasn’t a prostitute was involved in the final weeks of the Jesus story, I have no idea what the filmmakers wanted for this project. I’m pretty sure they didn’t achieve it.
What are people saying?
What are critics saying?
An interesting new take on a very well-known tale and a praiseworthy act of revisionism, but one which doesn’t ultimately deliver on its early promise.
What emerges is the definition of a mixed blessing: a film of (often literal) peaks and troughs, scattering occasional moments of grace.
Screen International by Fionnuala Halligan
[A] clearly well-intentioned, attractive, wistful-to-the-point-of-inertia film.
Hushed, deliberate and realised with considerable care and beauty, the resulting film has its heart entirely in the right place; its pulse, unfortunately, is far harder to locate.
The Guardian by Peter Bradshaw
The performances of Mara and Phoenix are careful and respectful, though with nothing like the lightning-flash of energy and scorn that they have given to secular roles in the past.
The Telegraph by Robbie Collin
Oddly bloodless, but thought-provoking in a discussion group kind of way, it’s less successful as a film than as an exercise, but at least it’s a worthwhile one.
The Hollywood Reporter by Stephen Dalton
Mary Magdalene is an uneasy viewing experience, ponderous and disjointed in places, but also crafted with conviction and a strong aesthetic vision.