Joseph Mawle as Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, in the BBC drama, The Passion. Photograph: BBC
Christ has risen, but it seems the critics think the resurrection lacked a little something. In the Sunday Times, AA Gill could barely be bothered to stifle a yawn, seeing The Passion as "ponderous and respectfully timid and dramatically neutered as (Gospel adaptations) invariably are", though with typical waspish condescension he conceded that James Nesbitt's Derry accent on Pontius Pilate "did bring a certain hint of religious bigotry and violence to the role".
You might think that Joseph Mawle's previous role as the penalty taker in the Guinness hurling advert would have given him a good grounding in playing the saviour, but the Observer's Kathryn Flett took issue with his Christ for being "infinitely more emotional than he was spiritual", and "too recognisably fallible to be inspiring". She wasn't alone in this. Writing in the Financial Times, John Lloyd said Mawle's Jesus "has something of the air of the stoned hippy about him", though he also credited Nesbitt with investing Pilate with "the cynical, comprehensible pragmatism of one whose job is to get through Passover without trouble".
The Independent's Katy Guest saw the irony in the production being broadcast during "a particularly bad week for moneylenders", and detected that "a very unmodern sympathy was evident for so-called blasphemers and religious nutters and for groups of bearded blokes entering town with suspicious rucksacks".
Breaking ranks with the generally indifferent response, though, was Stephen Pile in the Telegraph, who saw "a fabulous and definitive retelling of the Easter story from different points of view for our godless age".
Exactly how much did the BBC's The Passion contribute to the understanding of the greatest story ever told? Did the Christian message of redemption and renewal hit home? Was it too respectful? Is it always wrong for filmmakers to treat source material as gospel even if that material is Gospel? Your views, please.
