I just saw The Nativity Story and both loved it and loathed it.

First, Disney's New Line Cinema has got the story straight as far as authentic settings and costumes, but most important, they've got the virgin birth and Christ's divinity right. Two thumbs way up! And I liked the way Oscar Isaac portrayed Joseph's emotional turmoil after hearing Mary is pregnant. It's an Oscar-worthy performance.

However, Keisha Castle-Hughes' portrayal of Mary--at least to me--seemed emotionless and expressionless during most of the film. And rather than fear, surprise, or disbelief at the angel's announcement she would become pregnant with God's own Son, she seemed apathetic or preoccupied. I expected her to reply, "Yah, whatever."

But, worse, is my pet peeve with nativity scenes and Sunday school pageants that put the magi at the place of birth. The magi never visited the manger! The unspecified number (not necessarily three) of un-named magi (not Gaspar, Melchior and Balthasar) visited a "house" and worshipped a "child" not a baby (explaining why Herod had all males under two years of age killed). Screenwriter Mike Rich rationalizes all this in saying "we had to compress" the story so the magi arrive at the manger. (Mike, just "compress" the seemingly real-time trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem.)

Okay, I'm probably being way too picky. But shouldn't a film that boasts its biblical accuracy be, well, accurate!

The Nativity Story official site [off site]

The "original script" from Matthew and Luke

Disney's history of historical innaccuracy