"It's pretentious to create art just for the sake of stroking the artists ego." ~ Lou ReedWas so looking forward to this documentary -- to view previously uncovered materials, experts offering opinions & some valid discussions. However, during the first 19min of the film, the director seems to be suffering from the grandiose idea that the viewer would rather listen to him pontificate whilst getting slightly sea-sick from the choppy camera work, than to be presented with material.For that reason & that alone, simply refuse to recommend this film to anyone seeking information on Sangreal theories.

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 director clearly wants this to be a sensational piece rather than a scientific one. I mean some scenes clearly are taken from a crime movie for example the Gino Sandri scene (where the guy is threatened in a hand note by someone from the café in which the interview takes place), Nicolas Haywood (wow now this bloke in awesome....i mean talk about acting....with the slow talk and the long pauses LOL)or Ben Hammott (a guy who digs up all kinds of "authentic clues" near a church in France).A little to convenient for my taste. Way to obvious. As for the story itself, absolute BS IMHO, based on circumstantial evidence, "ancient" coded texts, heretic madmen. I mean come on....no hard evidence....none. Just speculation,outrageous cripted maps, outrageous connections and deductions, all based on the eledged findings of a mad priest (which BTW no one knows what he found yet some claim to have) thus dragging this ridiculous conspiracy theory further. I have no doubt that the Vatican are not that saint at all and that they are one of the most manipulative powers in the world, but what goes on in this "film" is mind-blowingly SF and thriller-like all for the sake of sensational.Two thumbs down for this one