Watch Bloodline For Free

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

I noticed that the "Shroud" was different than the one in the old footage shown in the first half. I Paused the movie and searched on internet. I found out that Ben had already confessed about faking the discovery and planting the clues by himself.Bruce could have caught it in time. He seems to have no eye for detail. He got tricked like a fifth grader. And I got tricked for a worth of four packs of cigarettes. And I spent 5 more minutes in writing this review than actually finishing the rest of it.An honest approach by a not very observant director ruined by a con artist's ambition to feel important.

Seems the movie is a fraud, staged on a set in an English warehouse.See:1) Text of email confession at grailseekers.blogspot.com, search for March 2012 Hoax2) Podcast of confession at http://latalkradio.com/Rene.php, March 21, 2012.I'm disappointed, and I now consider Ben Hammott to be beneath the richest con artist or the deadliest drug lord. Preying on one's money or addictions is unconscionable; preying on one's most basic, fundamental beliefs - the universal/cosmic order, correct or not, upon which every aspect of the lives of millions is built - is inhuman.Even if the questions/possibilities raised by the hoax are interesting as hell. No pun intended.

The film asks the question: "What if the greatest story ever told was a lie?" Perhaps the question that should be asked is: "What if the premise and storyline in this movie is a lie?" What if somebody recently placed the parchments in bottles for the archaeological scavenger hunt in order to find the wooden chest? What if somebody recently bought some ancient coins, an ungenterium, a common clay cup, and a glass phial from one of the antiquities dealers in Jerusalem several years ago and places it in the wooden chest? What if somebody recently forged all those parchments? What if somebody recently recreated a plastic mummified "body" of Mary Magdalene (actually just her head and hands)? What if somebody had an agenda to attempt to disprove the deity of the Lord Jesus and His bodily resurrection? What if they wanted to lead people away from the truth of the greatest story ever told, and also try and cash in on the run away best selling fictitious novel, the Da Vinci Code?This movie is just another Hollywood hoax. Period.

Let me first say that I am not someone who regularly posts comments on movies. However, I get so disturbed by film making posing as factual journalism that sometimes I find I cannot avoid comment. This is one such time. Don't get me wrong, Bloodline is good solid entertainment. I watched with great interest and excitement as the elements of a so called plot by the Vatican to cover up the true history of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was revealed in step by step film noir fashion. The trouble is that there is nothing in the film that links any of these seemingly miraculous discoveries to the point that the movie is trying to make. Lots of suspicious artifacts are uncovered and revealed as true relics simply by proclamation by the people making the discovery. Some attempt is made is one case to back the claim with scientific evidence but the incredibly amateurish method of uncovering the relics, the lack of proper excavating procedure and artifact handling methods just adds to the suspicious nature of the claims. Everything discovered is contaminated by the people making the discovery. This is the worst form of amateur archeology I have ever seen and as a scientist myself I can only say how absolutely disastrous such a procedure is to substantiating authenticity. All that aside, the evidence presented is simply entertainment detail with nothing to directly connect it to the claim and I would expect, the premise of the documentary. Let me say simply that it's OK to make a film expressing a controversial point of view about any subject. The da Vinci Code showed there was real interest and big money in it for something done well. The problem with Bloodline is that although it was done reasonably well, there were too many loose ends that were just dropped when the movie ended. As much as I didn't like The da Vinci Code at least that movie had some plausible explanation for the connection between discoveries and the theme of the movie, and it provided at least some kind of closure. Bloodline has none! I expect more from a documentary.