This film was much more fun to watch than The Passion of the Christ. It gave a real sense of historicity while presenting a Gospel-oriented message with surprising theological depth. And besides a few scenes of off-camera violence, it was appropriate for all but the youngest and most sensitive children.

Let's get the negative out of the way first. While mostly faithful to the source material, the writer and director seem to have taken several liberties. Most appear to be for the sake of film pace or time, but some were rather disappointing. Others are just nit-picking.

In one of the opening scenes, we see Elizabeth dressed in blue, as was Mary in a later scene. While this may be the traditional color for Mary, given that blue was second only to purple in the cost of dye, only the richest people could afford blue clothing in that time. And speaking of only for the rich, Mary and Joseph's marriage was portrayed as arranged: Joseph chose Mary, and Mary had no input into the matter. Much of the story is Mary learning to love her husband.

I was happy to see them include Mary's trip to see Elizabeth,  including the unborn infants' bond, but I was disappointed that they skipped the Magnificat, although part of it shows up later in the narration.

King Herod was very well portrayed as the paranoid, ruthless madman that he was--perhaps a bit too sane, though. His use of Roman guards in the film was inaccurate, but I understand that this was the director's way of avoiding the anti-semitic accusations that Gibson endured with The Passion.

On to the actual event of the birth, which was sadly the least accurate of any part of the movie. While they got the stable being in a cave right, almost everything else fell short.

First of all, if Bethlehem was so busy because of the census, why did we see less than a dozen people in town on Joseph's arrival with his in-labor bride? We see the residents at the killing of the holy innocents, but before that, Bethlehem is a ghost town. Where did they film this that they couldn't find extras to do walk-ons for that scene? It made the "no room in the inn" very unbelievable.

Once Mary gives birth, we see one shepherd witnessing the message of the angel with more curiosity than terror. Then the shepherds just start coming out of nowhere, heading to Bethlehem without saying a word. I assume this was a budget-saving choice, but they clearly found walk-ons! But sadder, as my oldest daughter said, "I was wondering how they'd do the angel choir. Well, I know how they did it. They didn't." Perhaps the "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" will be found in the Director's Cut or the deleted scenes on the DVD. The fact that my iPod played "Angels We Have Heard on High" five times on the way to the movie because I forgot to set it to shuffle made me look for this event, but I guess modern CGI just isn't advanced enough yet. Then, when the shepherds arrived at the stable, they found the baby loosely wrapped in a blanket, being held by Mary. The manger was there, but we never see Jesus lying in it, nor was He ever actually swaddled per se.

And then, as I feared, the three wise men show up at the stable. For those unaware, a careful reading of Matthew tells us that they arrived later, and Jesus and family were living in a house at the time. That's why Herod had all the boys two years and under killed, not just newborns.

OK, all that said, this movie may well be in my top twenty favorites ever. I criticize because I love, and someone would have to wield a lightsaber or spandex and a cape for it to be in my top ten.

So what did I like about it? It had theological insight. Elijah's experience was recalled again and again: "God was in the still small voice." It was a running theme throughout the film. And what is the film about? A still small baby Who happens to be the Word of God made flesh ("God made flesh" is also one of the lines in the script.) In fact, the film runneth over with Biblical references, even including the money changers in the temple.

And while my pet peeve of the magi in the stable got riled up by this film, the depiction of the magi brought some much-needed levity to the film, and the writer used them to demonstrate keen insight. Of all the surprises, the best one for me was that they got the myrrh right! Many tie the myrrh in with Jesus' miracles of healing, as it was used as a healing balm, but if you need the balm, it's not a miracle. Rather, its significance here is its use as a burial spice, and as the wise man said, "Myrrh, to honor the sacrifice," Jesus was born to die, and the Magi knew it from Scripture. And of all people, the most reluctant magus was the one to bring the myrrh, which was a nice touch.

Two other points I liked: Herod is seen involved in the sacrifice of a bull for his sin, which ties in beautifully with Jesus coming to be the ultimate sacrifice, and in the three aligning planets that formed the star, we see the three in one that recalls the Trinity.

This is the Christmas movie we've been waiting for. I would've made it more accurate, but not likely more enjoyable. Go see it, and reserve your copy of the Special Edition DVD. The director's commentary track will hopefully clear up my complaints.