The "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" production attempts to portray itself as a documentary investigation of the Jesus/Mary Magdalen marriage controversy (among others) as set forth in Dan Brown's novel THE DA VINCI CODE. Couching the production as a legitimate investigation implies a fair and balanced presentation of facts and opinions by "experts" followed by an unbiased debate which allows the viewer to form a final opinion.
Let's take a look at the production's "experts:" Chuck Missler, of the Koinonia House ("Bringing the world into focus through the lens of Scripture"); Paul L. Maier, creator of the Nelson Ministry Services; Darrell Bock, Professor of Spiritual Development and Culture at the Dallas Theological Seminary; Erwin Lutzer, Moody Church Christian Life Center; Sandra Miesel, Catholic journalist; and Jim Garlow, Pastor, Skyline Wesleyan Church, San Diego, CA. (Credentials are from a Google search). It should be noted that most of these unbiased experts have written their own books debunking the marriage controversy and are just as interested in book sales as is Dan Brown. If the production were "fair and balanced," one would expect to hear from such experts as Elaine Pagels, author of THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS; and Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, authors of HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL (to name just a few). Admittedly these persons have their own paradigms, but they do balance the equation.
No one who has engaged in legitimate scientific historical research on any subject would try to debunk a hypothesis using phrases such as "that's just wrong," or by arguing that certain manuscripts are heretical because they were discovered in Egypt and were written in Coptic. Nor could one legitimately conclude that because there is no evidence that Jesus was married therefore He was not married--evidence which could have been purged from the historical record (including the official canon) by the early Church. Indeed, there was no evidence for plate tectonics or black holes or evolution until it was discovered and put to rigorous scientific scrutiny.
It is this viewer's opinion that "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" is a thinly-veiled attempt to promote fundamentalist Christian dogma. There is nothing wrong with that, except that it incorrectly presents itself as a non-biased documentary and could therefore be considered propaganda. If your faith is in need of strengthening and you are willing to accept without question the opinions of its experts, then "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" will probably do just that. If, however, you prefer to look at all sides of an issue and make your own decision as to its veracity, then this production should be taken for what it is.
Finally, "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" is also something else: at the end is an invitation for the viewer to purchase a DVD or VHS for a nominal fee, followed by a warning of what will happen to you if you make illegal copies. Is it all about the money?