So, I'll admit that I never read the book. I'm not a big fiction book reader, and it always kind of turns me off when everyone is reading something.
But I feel like seeing the movie gave me a good synopsys of what the story was and I have to say... it wasn't nearly as interesting or controversal as people said.
Perhaps its the fact that I've actually taken three or four real Theology courses. I knew that there were other books of the Bible floating around that a council of scholars voted out. Stories of Jesus' life between the age of like 8 and 30, are also not new to me. So, while more fundamentalist Catholics who believe that the Bible was a book handed down from the clouds are up in arms from this movie, nothing that was proposed really shocked me.
There's also a huge gaping hole in the story. [SPOILER ALERT] Why does finding a direct bloodline to Mary Magdaline necessarily prove that Jesus had children?? Now, I actually believe that he probably did... not sure why he wouldn't... but nothing about the story proves that she didn't have children with someone else, even after the crucifiction. These other Bible stories say they were married, but its not like people only had kids with the people they were married to, especially when their spouses die early. Just doesn't prove much of anything as far as I can tell.
Also, everyone in the movie is pretty good, except for, and I hate to say it, Tom Hanks. He's horribly miscast in the movie. We just don't believe him as the smart guy. Tom Hanks is everyman. He's the modern day Jimmy Stewart. He's Forrest Gump... the Fedex guy from Castaway... the foreign diplomat from the Terminal. He's no religious scholar with a PhD.
Other people could have played the smart guy. Harrison Ford... well, I guess he's already search for the grail once, so that's out. How about Russell Crowe. No, not the bruiser from Gladiator, but the dork from a Beautiful Mind. Hell, even Bill Pullman could have been more believable in this role. Any other ideas?