Feeling grief over the torture and execution of God Who took your own flesh and blood for His own is the most ordered expression of sorrow imaginable. So I don't ultimately see anything wrong with it, as cheesy as the flashbacks are.

.
Do you find the flashback cheesy because you think the blessed mother would have withheld comfort from the Christ Child except for the most grievous of injuries? Not trying to be contrarian, it's just that I don't find the flashback cheesy at all and am trying to understand the argument. 

It was definitely an emphasis. This might just come down to taste, then. I found the flashback welcome, since it presented a deeper/different perspective from Our Lady's view. I think it's conventional to claim she experienced the most and perfect grief for Our Savior. The flashback tries to communicate that grief. It's alien to us, because none of us raised the Christ Child, none of us (literally) bandaged his scrapes and bruises as the Blessed Mother did. Add to that of course that none of us were holier than her either. Anyways, it's quite uncomfortable (the flashback) and yet it should be. Useful to be reminded of how in our weakness and self interest, that kind of grief would break us. 

My issue with it was the opposite.  She hesitated to go comfort Our Lord and St. John practically had to plead with her to go.  I find that insulting to Our Lady.  She would never have hesitated for a single second.  Also, the scene where the Child Jesus falls down gently onto some straw from his height of about 2-feet depicts Our Lady "losing it", frantically flailing her hands chasing after the Child and losing her composure.  Also an insult to Our Lady.

.
That's an interesting perspective. Is it true that she could not have been overwhelmed by grief, such that would account for hesitation (I assume you do not interpret the hesitation as deliberate, as though she were evaluating whether or not she should assist)? She was human like us and emotions are human features, not dissimilar from hunger or other physiological processes. The idea of her being overwhelmed with grief in a way that could be momentarily arresting does not strike me as anymore unbecoming than the idea of her being exhausted or hungry from the journey to Egypt.
.
I guess I don't remember the flashback well enough to agree with the depiction of her frantic and flailing, so I'll reserve a response to that part until I've refreshed my memory. Suffice it to say, I don't remember it as unbecoming but my memory could be off.

My issue with it was the opposite.  She hesitated to go comfort Our Lord and St. John practically had to plead with her to go.  I find that insulting to Our Lady.  She would never have hesitated for a single second.  Also, the scene where the Child Jesus falls down gently onto some straw from his height of about 2-feet depicts Our Lady "losing it", frantically flailing her hands chasing after the Child and losing her composure.  Also an insult to Our Lady.

Like I said above, perhaps it was more about thinking she would be taking away from His Passion/intervening in the Passion knowing He was supposed to suffer.  

There was a book out at the time of the movie that had a number of questions that were answered to explain this or that about the scenes/Mel's choices.  I wonder whether this one was mentioned at all.   

Also, the scene where the Child Jesus falls down gently onto some straw from his height of about 2-feet depicts Our Lady "losing it", frantically flailing her hands chasing after the Child and losing her composure.  Also an insult to Our Lady.

Our Lord would not have been capable of falling as depicted, imo.  She would not lose Her composure; He would not lose His balance in any situation other than the one on the Via Crucis.

The temple was destroyed and the Jєωs were scattered; punishment for deicide.

Today the Church is destroyed and the Catholics are scattered. The time of tribulation is going on, "a time such as never was from the time that nations began even until that time".

The latter punishment seems more severe, hence the corresponding crime too; Great Apostasy in spite of all graces.


Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

This is true except, in the end, the Jєωs die uglier. They have the deepest recesses of hell reserved for themselves because, despite being chosen by God, they rejected His Son and murdered Him.

Our Lord would not have been capable of falling as depicted, imo.  She would not lose Her composure; He would not lose His balance in any situation other than the one on the Via Crucis.

That's a very solid point.  Our Lord with His perfection and without Original Sin, would have had perfect control over His Body and perfect mental attention (so that He could not fall from inattentiveness either) ... as depicted in that scene.  Yes, falling beneath the weight of the Cross was simply due to His Body being unable to physically bear the burden ... and was not due to clumsiness.

If the Christ Child encountered no difficulties (I realize no one has said that, but if He was incapable of even tripping, it certainly raises the question) what exactly did the Blessed Mother *do* to raise Him? Is she as the perfect Mother purely theoretical? Because it is sounding an awful lot like she never had to comfort Him, never had to assist Him, never had to do any of the things that constitute actually being a good mother.