The Apostle Paul calls Satan “the god of this world” (some translations render II Corinthians 4:4 “the god of this age” which has interesting implications).  Truly, wherever there is power in an Earthly sense, our Adversary wields it.  Nowhere is this more true than Hollywood.

But in order to be effective, lies and propaganda must be sown with Truth.

What’s more, there are unhappy servants in Hollywood…people who know what’s going on, who have sold themselves to be a part of it, but long for freedom from it (even if it hurts or costs them in the end).

Is that what this movie was really all about?

In my days before taking the “Red Pill” that showed me who really controls world affairs and who our real enemies are, I saw and reviewed Kingdom of Heaven, a movie by Ridley Scott.

In my Rush Limbaugh era, I was furious with Scott for painting all “Christians” as brutish animals and all muslims as civilized and chivalrous.

But was that really what he was saying?

Today, I know that Islam in general and Wahabist jihad in specific are controlled and guided by Rome—the same “Christian” force that gave us both the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not giving Scott a free pass.  Kingdom of Heaven was still obnoxious in a politically correct sense and I’ll be in desperate need of entertainment before I see it again, despite my awakening having given me new perspective.

Yet, we need to examine this movie objectively, and not with the eyes of a knee-jerk, immature Christian faith.

It was that same knee-jerk reaction that threw the baby out with the bathwater on Darren Aronofsky’s gnostic Noah.

On the one hand, I think Christian leaders or pastors who endorsed the movie were in dereliction of their responsibility to their flocks.

On the other hand, there were parts of the movie I liked strongly.  I liked the idea that Noah was a “hard bastard” chosen because he could finish a seemingly insurmountable task (although I wouldn’t quite call him cold for watching the world drown).

I liked the idea that Noah was a conservationist in contrast and conflict with all the rest of humanity (and I am anything but an “environmentalist”).

Lastly, I liked that, despite his inaccuracy and “artistic license”, Aronofsky still had loyalty to the idea that the event actually happened.

For my complete review of Noah, go here.

The same can be said of Ridely Scott’s rendition of the Exodus though I dare say he was even more “loose” with the Biblical narrative.

The idea for the movie came from the top man at 20^th Century Fox, Peter Chernin, former operations officer at Rupert Knight of Malta, Order of St. Gregory, “I Like ‘Em Blonde” Murdoch’s News Corp.  He also loves Barack Obama so much he’s given him several fundraisers.

It was an offer Ridley couldn’t refuse.

Right off the bat is the issue of casting.

I do think it’s quite humorous that Scott and Fox were immediately embroiled in “controversy” because all of the lead roles were given to caucasians while soldiers and slaves were played by non-whites.  The Leftists were all up in arms and vociferously pushed for a boycott that went ignored by the general public.

In reality, the cast wasn’t quite so monochrome in its breakdown.  Scott told Yahoo;

Yahoo: What was in your mind when you set about creating this international cast?

Scott: Egypt was – as it is now – a confluence of cultures, as a result of being a crossroads geographically between Africa, the Middle East and Europe.  We cast major actors from different ethnicities to reflect this diversity of culture, from Iranians to Spaniards to Arabs.  There are many different theories about the ethnicity of the Egyptian people, and we had a lot of discussions about how to best represent the culture.

María Valverde, who played Moses’ wife Zipporah is from Spain.

Ben Kingsley, although having been born and raised in England, is of Gujarati Indian descent on his father’s side.

Hiam Abbass, who played Moses’ adoptive Egyptian mother Bithia is an Israeli.

Indira Varma, who played the Egyptian pagan High Priestess, has an East Indian father just as Kingsley does (but, like Kingsley, she’s English…do they really count as “international”?).

Golshifteh Farahani, who played Nefertari—the wife of Ramses II—is Iranian.

Kevork Malikyan, who played Moses’ father-in-law Jethro, is of Armenian descent.

Of course none of this matters, apparently, given that the two starring roles were given to white guys.

In spite of this, Joel Edgerton was excellent as Ramesses II—petulant, arrogant, aggressive; you really did feel that he was a man who’s whims were to be instantly obeyed (which is actually creepy and makes you wonder if Joel is really that good an actor or was he channeling his inner @ssh*le).

Perhaps the most enigmatic choice in casting was Christian Bale as Moses (“Moshe”).

If you close your eyes and think of Moses, Christian Bale is probably on the other side of Tahiti (which his livelihood can easily afford).  What could possibly have gone into choosing him for the title role?

Although Bale has a long filmography that includes starring roles in American Psycho, and The Machinist (my personal favorite was his rendition of survivor POW Dieter Dengler in Rescue Dawn) the roles that, to date, define Bale’s work are as Christopher Nolan’s semi-psychotic super hero, Batman.

Was that the vein we were to accept Bale’s Moses in?  The other peculiarities of this movie make that abundantly clear.

The movie opens with the customary Ridley Scott prose but a pro-Jew, anti-Christian slant is betrayed with the use of the ridiculous dating white-wash convention of renaming “AD” Ano Domini (In the Year of our Lord) “Common Era” and “BC” (Before Christ) “Before Common Era”.  We’re told the date is “1300 BCE”.

The movie begins in the court of Pharaoh Seti.  Seti is played by John Turturro, which was an interesting choice.  It worked but I still wanted to snicker, especially after Turturro’s tongue-in-cheek performances in the Transformers movies.

The High Priestess of Sekhmet the war goddess is examining the entrails of a slaughtered goose to predict the victor of a coming battle against the Hittites.  Although she states that she is unable to discern who will triumph (always a safe way to go), she gave a prophecy of a separate event that would occur during the fighting; “one leader will be saved, and his savior will one day lead.”

This was an interesting way to build the idea that General Moses, raised next to future Pharaoh Ramses, would soon lead an insurgency on behalf of the Hebrews.

Such a view comes far more from Josephus than from Scripture.  According to the Roman historian, the Egyptians had been plagued by an invasion from Ethiopia.  Every city through to Memphis was over-run.  In desperation, they turned to Moses (whom they knew from the beginning was a Hebrew) and made him general of the counter-attacking army.

It’s quite a fascinating narrative—

So Moses, at the persuasion both of Thermuthis and the king himself, cheerfully undertook the business: and the sacred scribes of both nations were glad; those of the Egyptians, that they should at once overcome their enemies by his valor, and that by the same piece of management Moses would be slain; but those of the Hebrews, that they should escape from the Egyptians, because Moses was to be their general.  But Moses prevented the enemies, and took and led his army before those enemies were apprized of his attacking them; for he did not march by the river, but by land, where he gave a wonderful demonstration of his sagacity; for when the ground was difficult to be passed over, because of the multitude of serpents, (which it produces in vast numbers, and, indeed, is singular in some of those productions, which other countries do not breed, and yet such as are worse than others in power and mischief, and an unusual fierceness of sight, some of which ascend out of the ground unseen, and also fly in the air, and so come upon men at unawares, and do them a mischief,) Moses invented a wonderful stratagem to preserve the army safe, and without hurt; for he made baskets, like unto arks, of sedge, and filled them with ibes, and carried them along with them; which animal is the greatest enemy to serpents imaginable, for they fly from them when they come near them; and as they fly they are caught and devoured by them, as if it were done by the harts; but the ibes are tame creatures, and only enemies to the serpentine kind…

Scripture implies what Josephus says openly—that the Egyptians knew from the beginning Moses was a Hebrew, and a dangerous one at that.  But the two sources part ways when it comes to why Moses was forced to leave Egypt.

According to Josephus, envy and fear amongst the Egyptians prompted an attempt to kill Moses.  As the returning general, fresh from his victory against the Ethiopians, he could easily lead a rebellion and overturn the ruling establishment.

Although the Bible agrees Moses had a desire to free his people, it gives a different account of his first attempt to do so—

Now it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brethren and looked at their burdens.  And he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren.  So he looked this way and that way, and when he saw no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.

And when he went out the second day, behold, two Hebrew men were fighting, and he said to the one who did the wrong, “Why are you striking your companion?”  Then he said, “Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you intend to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?”

So Moses feared and said, “Surely this thing is known!”  When Pharaoh heard of this matter, he sought to kill Moses.  But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh and dwelt in the land of Midian… ~ Exodus 2:11-15

But in the movies, it’s much more suspenseful to raise Moses as an Egyptian and then have him suddenly find out he’s a Hebrew.  Hey, it worked for Cecil B. DeMille.

DeMille also chose Ramses II as the Pharaoh who stood opposite Moses in this battle of wills, probably because he is considered the greatest of Egyptian monarchs.  In fact, there are several others who have done the same for the sake of good story-telling but there is a better candidate; Thutmose II.

Work by archeologist Dr. Joel Klenck states that Thutmose and many around him suffered from unusual lesions, that there was an uprising which caused chaos in Egypt and, despite his 18-year reign, little of his period is recorded—often a sign of bad events swept under the historical carpet.

But even DeMille didn’t stray so far from Scripture as the Chernin/Scott production when it came to the age and personality of Moses.

Acts 7:23 tells us that Moses was 40 years old when he left the lofty comforts of the king’s court to look upon the suffering of his brethren which resulted in murder and exile.

Exodus 7:7 tells us that Moses was 80 when he stood before Pharaoh and his brother, Aaron 83.  Aaron was included because, according to the Bible, rather than the young, tempestuous rebel/general image the movie portrays, Moses was a broken old man—the most humble man on the Earth (Numbers 12:3).  He actually argued with YHWH not to go because he wasn’t quick of speech and out of exasperation, the Lord told Moses to speak through his brother Aaron.

The movie, however, shows a young Christian Bale killing a couple Egyptian guards because they mistook him for a slave and it being of little consequence.  It was the revelation that he was Hebrew that was “treason” and cause for exile!

Only 9 years later, we’re told, Moses returned to lead an insurrection that got help from God along the way.  At least DeMille put a white wig and beard on Charlton Heston.  It wasn’t remotely believable but special effects had their limitations in 1956.

The interaction with “God” in the movie was perhaps the most ridiculous and annoying.

Although Moses being hammered and rendered immobile by a mud slide (a broken, captive audience—as often the Lord will require!) wasn’t bad “artistic license”, the role of “God” sure was—a prepubescent boy who speaks in front of the burning bush.

I don’t know if it’s more funny or offensive when the child says the words “I AM”.  I thought I’d seen the last of children saviors after George Lucas’ little Anakin Skywalker won the intergalactic NASCAR race on Tatooine.  This was just as annoying and completely unfounded as well!

In the beginning of the movie, Moses is an atheistic skeptic who relies only upon himself.  There is friction with his wife Zipporah over this in conflict with her faith in God.  Their battle over how their son should be raised is a very real and tragic one for countless families since then and through to today.

We’re never really sure about the boy/God because after he proclaims to a buried-in-mud Moses “I AM” Moses later shouts in exasperation that he’s tired of dealing with a messenger.  Which is it?

There’s no confusion about what the boy wants, however.  He tells Moses he needs a general to fight.

The treatment of the miracles in Egypt is interesting.  They are simultaneously mundane and miraculous (and that’s not without precedent in how YHWH has worked with a great many other faithful).  But we don’t see the repeated meetings between Moses and Pharaoh, where Moses works miracles with his staff and leprous hand mentioned in Scripture.  In fact, rather than Moses pouring blood-red water onto the ground before Pharaoh, crocodiles start a feeding frenzy on some poor fishermen which turns the Nile red (or is it that their thrashing pulled up the red clay, as one Egyptian adviser suggested?).  They disturbed the frogs whose living and dying brought the gnats who brought the flies who brought the sores.

Not that far-fetched as an explanation of the miraculous, really.  I’m actually OK with that because the Lord uses mundane events with miraculous timing far more than blatant, obvious miracles.

But it’s the depiction of Moses as the insurrectionist general being rescued in his slow war of attrition by miracles, that doesn’t match well with the Biblical narrative.  This seems less an accurate account of the Exodus and more a cry for insurrection against the Luciferian world order…but the Luciferians make the movies so what’s going on here?!

One place both DeMille and Scott depart from Scripture is, oddly enough, to protect our sensibilities from the harshness of the Word—the problem is that, intertwined in that harshness is the Gospel.

In both movies, it is the arrogance and barbarism of Ramses that suggests the killing of the firstborn to the Lord but only after Ramses has already threatened to do that to the Hebrews.

The reality is that it was the plan from the beginning.

All the firstborn of Egypt were to die unless they were protected by the blood of a lamb upon their doorposts and lintels.

Moses recounting the requirements to the elders was actually a stirring moment.  “Why should we do this?” they asked.  “Pity the lambs if I’m wrong,” Moses replied.  “If I’m right, we will bless them for eternity.”

Ramses later presents his dead son to Moses and asks him with angry anguish how the Hebrews could worship such a God.  Moses’ response was the catalyst for their release—another great moment (I won’t ruin it for you).

There were actually several other great scenes, some were quite subtle.

In arguing with Viceroy Hegep, the abuser of the Hebrews at Pithom, Moses corrects him about the precise meaning of “Israelite”.

When the plagues begin, Moses is distraught before God that they have effected everyone, “Who are you trying to punish?”  Scripture is clear that the first three plagues effected both Hebrew and Egyptian alike—

And the Lord said to Moses, “Rise early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh as he comes out to the water.  Then say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Let My people go, that they may serve Me.  Or else, if you will not let My people go, behold, I will send swarms of flies on you and your servants, on your people and into your houses.  The houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and also the ground on which they stand.  And in that day I will set apart the land of Goshen, in which My people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there, in order that you may know that I am the Lord in the midst of the land.  I will make a difference between My people and your people.  Tomorrow this sign shall be.”’”  And the Lord did so.  Thick swarms of flies came into the house of Pharaoh, into his servants’ houses, and into all the land of Egypt.  The land was corrupted because of the swarms of flies. ~ Exodus 8:20-24 (NKJV)

With the of the death of the firstborn, however, those who obeyed the Word were spared, regardless of their nationality—I’ll wager many a shell-shocked Egyptian eagerly mimicked the Hebrew precautions and perhaps more than a few scoffing Hebrews paid dearly for their lack of faith.

I like how the movie reinforces the idea that the beginning of the plagues effecting the Israelites made them more likely to obey Moses, but you have to read between the lines to get there.

Ramses then becomes bent on killing Moses and begins systematically executing random whole Jewish families until the whereabouts of Moses and his family are divulged.  Again, this is nowhere in Scripture but it does lead to a humorous moment when Ramses also hangs his adviser and even the High Priestess when they don’t produce solutions for him.

Another grievous departure from Scripture was what happened after the Hebrews were released.  Moses then attempted to lead them back through the desert wilderness trying to recall his trek from his family to Memphis.  He thinks he can remember but he’s deeply distraught.  He wants to bring them to a safe and tactically-secure location as soon as possible but not only does God ignore his pleas for help, Moses ineptly leads them to the Red Sea and a dead end as Pharaoh’s army comes crashing down on them—but not before losing many chariots through a dangerous mountain pass.

Not only is this not in Scripture, it actually contradicts the Word!

Moses never had to rack his brain for a route through the wilderness, wondering desperately how to stand in leadership for his people—the Lord made it powerfully clear with a massive plume of smoke by day and a terrifying column of fire by night guiding them the entire way.  When they reached the Red Sea, the column of fire switched positions and kept the Egyptians from bearing down on them before they were through crossing.

Again, what we are seeing is that it was much more important to the film-makers to encourage the rise of a future Moses than to honor the original story.

Be careful what you wish for.

_______________________

There have been a spate of people’s revenge movies coming out over the last few years—

Assault on Wall Street (2013)…the original title was Bailout: The Age of Greed

After the Fall (2014) is a sort of Wall Street meets Falling Down; again, about bail-outs and the little guy getting crushed

More recently there is The Big Short

And even a remake of Point Break

But, of course, they’re all seeking revenge against the bankers.  This is being allowed in theaters because “the bankers” are only at the mid-level.  Above them is the literal Whore of Babylon: Rome (read my book).

So again I ask, “What’s going on here?”

The fact that the impetus for the movie came from 20^th Century Fox’s top Luciferian, Peter Chernin, doesn’t convince me that the Elite secretly want a Moses to rise up against their order.  It certainly would suit them all if incompetents or puppets attempted to channel the discontent of the world right where the satanists wanted them to be; towards disaster and enslaved unification under an (or the) anti-Christ.

But the God of the Exodus has a sense of humor along with a clock ticking towards His Judgment.  If the Luciferians are looking for an uprising, they may get what they seek…but not quite the way they intended.

This was in spite of poor reviews from critics (whom I don’t follow) and enthusiasts alike.

I stopped paying attention to the “critics” and their elitist drivel when they savaged the Burt Reynolds movie Smokey and the Bandit. It was a movie that was intended as pure, blue-collar entertainment (and that’s all it was). But the “critics” tore it apart because it wasn’t high-brow enough. This movie was released in 1977 but I never forgot my reaction to the reviews.

Kingdom of Heaven opens at an interesting moment in history. We are told by Scott’s affinity for prologue prose:

“It is almost 100 years since Christian armies from Europe seized Jerusalem.”

“Europe suffers in the grip of repression and poverty. Peasant and lord alike flee to the Holy Land in search of fortune or salvation.”

If you know nothing of history, you’d think that was pretty brutish and imperialistic of those “Christian armies from Europe.” Before the movie even begins you have a bias against the Christians and for the peace-loving, seemingly indigenous muslims of Palestine.

But the truth is this—

Although the eastern Mediterranean area was conquered by the Aravs in the seventh century, Christians had been permitted to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land until 1071 when the Seljuk Turks swept in from Asia and defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert. Seizing all of Asia Minor as well as the Holy Land the Seljuk Turks soon impeded Christian pilgrimages to Jerusalem, forcing the Byzantine emperor, Alexius Comnenus, to ask Pope Urban II (1088-1099) for help against the Turks in the early 1090s. ~ The End of Europe’s Middle Ages: The Crusades, Applied History Research Group, University of Calgary, 1997

The movie opens with our hero “Balian” (played by Orlando Bloom) getting over the suicide death of his wife, who was stricken with grief over the loss of their child. The seedy village priest then steals the silver cross from the neck of Balian’s wife and orders his 2 surly cohorts to decapitate her before putting her in her grave because she was a suicide.

Now I do know that, according to Catholic doctrine, a suicide can not be buried in consecrated ground:

That suicide is unlawful is the teaching of Holy Scripture and of the Church, which condemns the act as a most atrocious crime and, in hatred of the sin and to arouse the horror of its children, denies the suicide Christian burial. ~ online Catholic Encyclopedia

Historically, both Catholic and Jewish doctrine deny funeral rights, or burial in consecrated ground, to those who kill themselves. ~ The Taboo Of Suicide, by Michael Dunn of The Tampa Tribune

But neither do I know anything nor was I able to find anything on such a decapitation practice (nor am I aware of the doctrine that suicides are automatically condemned to Hell). Scott seems to have created this idea to help the audience despise the “priest.”

Here Balian’s “father” shows up (Liam Neeson, “Godfrey”) to claim his bastard child, beg him for forgiveness and offer to take him to Jerusalem to get involved in the Crusades (but later we find out, “Godfrey” does not fight for Christ nor the Pope).

To the script-writer’s credit (an immediate “sure I’ll go” would’ve been cheesy and unrealistic), Balian denies everything and says, despite the bait given by Godfrey to find forgiveness there, that he’s happy to be the village blacksmith. But we all want Balian to go, don’t we?

In walks the seedy village “priest” who goads Balian with how his wife is in Hell for her suicide, and then brags with a smile that she has no head in Hell (because he had it cut off). Of course Balian then brutally murders the “priest” but thanks to the ridiculous scene being outrageously over-the-top the audience is fully with him.

It is the beginning of a trend within Scott’s movie: all of those dedicated to serve Christendom are ignorant, barbaric, insensitive brutes who abhor logic, compassion and reason. With bias that would make Dan Rather blush, Scott shows only one such muslim late in the movie for a few brief moments and all the rest of his fanatics are resoundingly Christian—not Catholic (as the historical period would dictate) but Christian. The nuance is important because, until the Reformation of Martin Luther, the “directions” for what it means to follow Jesus (the Holy Bible) was simply unavailable to the general public.

For Scott to create such an Islamo-centric movie, in these dark times, is beyond reason, logic, patriotism and good taste (as is all of Leftist thought). For more on the truth about Islam visit my article on the subject.

Of course now Balian must flee his village (because the peasants loved their ass of a “priest”) and he runs after his “father.”

Enter Liam Neeson as—you guessed it—the seasoned warrior mentoring our hero (a-la, Star Wars: Episode I, a-la Batman Begins, etc.).

Balian is magically and miraculously a bad-ass with a sword and we know neither how nor why but “Godfrey” tells him never to use his “low guard,” always go into battle with his “high guard”…which is something I’ve never heard in my many years of martial arts training. The basic “garde” position, with the tip of your blade pointed towards your foe’s neck or face allows the most distance between you and your opponent (giving you time to react to what he might do and keeping your blade as a buffer between you).

Again I get the sense of—instead of authenticity—Scott padding his movie with b.s. to push his audience into where he wants them rather than entice them there. It’s the kind of heavy-handed, sledge-hammer tactics I’ve come to expect from the likes of Spielberg. But who am I to argue with success?

The small group of Godfrey, Balian and Crusader knights is quickly overtaken by soldiers from the local bishop who wants Balian for murder. Godfrey then nobly claims, “I am also a murderer” at which point the soldiers brutally ambush and kill most of the knights and mortally wound Godfrey before being driven off.

Again, the scene is over-the-top in it’s drain upon realism. The Christian “bishop” and his representatives are only too eager to kill Crusader knights lead by a nobleman to make Balian pay for killing a seedy priest. The leader of the soldiers comes across to Godfrey as an arrogant ass, further backing the audience into the Balian/Godfrey corner.

But the encounter conveniently puts Godfrey on his deathbed, where he bequeaths his name (the “Baron of Ibelin”), sword, signet ring, Palestinian property and knighthood upon Balian who must go on without him.

Balian is then shipwrecked while traveling to Jerusalem. He awakes on the beach, miraculously alive, to find a horse in what’s left of the ship’s hold even more miraculously alive. They were destined to be together.

That is, until 2 loud arabs confront Balian as he at last corrals his horse at a water hole. One Arab speaks for the other claiming that Balian must give up his horse or fight. Reluctantly, Balian dispatches the haughty Arab but spares his “servant” and asks him to take him to Jerusalem.

Once there, Balian shows the “servant” magnanimous mercy. Although the servant offers himself as Balian’s slave, Balian releases him with the gift of a horse and the promise of prayers for the man he killed. Such a promise is the closest thing we get to any semblance of Balian’s faith. According to Scott, the less passionate you are about being a Christian, the more compassionate and reasonable you are towards your fellow man.

The “servant” leaves Balian promising him with reverence; “Your quality will be known among your enemies before ever you meet them.” Ahh, the set-up is sown to wow the audience later. No one would think for a moment that we might see this “servant” again, where the mercy will be repaid (muslims are renowned worldwide for their mercy)!

And such realism! We can always expect good deeds to come back to us a short time later…can’t we? We can always expect those to whom we do good deeds to humbly and reverently accept them…can’t we??

Normally, I am willing to suspend my disbelief for the sake of a worthy movie…unfortunately Kingdom of Heaven is not such a movie. So I proceed with cynicism.

Balian goes to the very hill where Christ was crucified…but alas he finds no peace. He only wrestles with the idea that his wife is damned.

Again, we don’t have to worry about fairness to historical Catholic doctrine because the movie never makes it clear that Catholicism rules Christendom at this time.

Balian is accosted by knights who seem to be servants of Godfrey. Repatriated, they now serve Balian.

Next, a mysterious and assertive woman gallops into the courtyard where Balian is staying to call upon him (“Sibylla,” the sister of Jerusalem’s king, played by Eva Green).

Then we are treated to a dialogue between Balian and his “Hospitaller” (a special order of knights commissioned with the treatment and care of Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land, played by David Thewlis). It comes extremely close to giving a much-needed explanation of the heart of Christianity verses the apostasies and outrages of “religion”…but doesn’t.

Because Balian found no peace on the hill where Christ was crucified he claims that he has lost his religion. The Hospitaller then says, “I put no stock in religion,” to which every good Christian screams, “Right! It’s all about a relationship with Jesus Christ that brings FAITH alive! ‘Religion’ is man-made and misguided—the reason behind every abuse done by so-called Christians!”

But don’t hold your breath. Instead, the Hospitaller tells us that, “By the word ‘religion’ I’ve seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will [sic] of God. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who can not defend themselves. And goodness, what God desires, is here [pointing to the head] and here [pointing to the heart]. By what you decided to do every day you will be a good man. Or not.”

Has this guy ever met George Lucas? He spouts the same feel-good, mumbo-jumbo you get out of your average Star Wars movie! By the way, the best actor in the original Star Wars, Sir Alec Guinness, felt the same way—

Sir Alec Guinness hated Star Wars so much he talked George Lucas into killing the Obi-Wan Kenobi character, he revealed in a recent interview.

Guinness, one of the grand figures of British film with more than 60 cinematic appearances to his credit, told the new chatter magazine Talk that he convinced series creator Lucas that Kenobi would be a more effective mystical mentor if he appeared to Luke as a ghost. Lucas liked the idea, rewriting the first film to include the Jedi Knight’s death in combat with former protégé Darth Vader.

However, Guinness said he had less purely artistic goals at heart.

“What I didn’t tell him was that I just couldn’t go on speaking those bloody awful, banal lines. I’d had enough of the mumbo jumbo,” he told Talk interviewer Fintan O’Toole.

As a result, Kenobi’s role was dramatically pared down in “The Empire Strikes Back” and “The Return of the Jedi”, fortuitously minimizing Guinness’ involvement with the blockbuster series. Sir Alec Guinness hated Star Wars so much he talked George Lucas into killing the Obi-Wan Kenobi character, he revealed in a recent interview. ~ Alec Guinness Blasts Jedi “Mumbo Jumbo”, posted: 07:54 am ET, 08 September 1999, Space.com

From this dialogue the audience can easily deduce that anyone passionate about Jesus Christ easily fits into the category of “fanatic” whose ideals are “lunacy.” This is re-inforced throughout the rest of the movie via the characters of “Guy de Lusignan,” and “Reynald de Chatillon” who show that they believe their greatest service to Jesus Christ is to murder and pillage muslims in order to incite war with the beneficent Saladin.

Although the foundation of the movie, the reason for Balian’s existence and the moral authority for action and bloodshed is the defense of those who “can not defend themselves,” it is more useful to comicbook writers than to Christians. The idea that we are “good” or “bad” based upon our daily actions is the worst sort of blasphemous heresy—one that St. Paul spent great amounts of effort to counter:

Romans 3:21-25
21 But now apart from the Law the Righteousness of G-d has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the Righteousness of G-d through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of G-d,
24 being justified as a Gift by His Grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom G-d displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.
NASU (capitalization and abbreviation added to counter translational disrespect)

Romans 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the Free Gift of G-d is Eternal Life in Christ Jesus our L-rd.
NASU (capitalization and abbreviation added)

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by Grace you have been Saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the Gift of G-d;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
NASU (capitalization and abbreviation added)

Proverbs 14:12
12 There is a way which seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.
NASU

Next we see a courtyard in Jerusalem where 2 knights are about to be hung. We are told by the Hospitaller (obviously Scott’s voice of reason) that the king of Jerusalem (the leprous King Baldwin IV, played by Edward Norton) keeps the peace and allows all to worship in the city, the way the muslims did “before we came.” The 2 knights are Templars who murdered arabs to incite good king Saladin to war. They are hung.

At no point in the movie is a muslim depicted in the same way as these radical Christians and, as we’ve just learned from history, the very reason for the First Crusade was because muslims ceased allowing Christians to worship in Jerusalem—Scott perpetrates a flat-out falsehood for the sake of his Islamo-phile propaganda.

It never ceases to amaze me how fools on the Left rush to defend that which they know nothing about—but, in fact, threatens to do them and their country great harm. There are many such examples but the one that sticks out for me are the London bombings of July [2005] in which everyone from London Mayor Ken Livingstone (who invited many a radical muslim to his city) to Prime Minister Tony Blair to President George Bush who all rushed to the microphones to proclaim that the bombings were acted out by radicals who have hijacked the “religion of peace.” WHERE ARE THE MUSLIMS WHO BELIEVE THIS?

If Ridley Scott approached Christianity with half the empathy and compassion he did Islam he may have come a little closer to getting this movie right.

Soon we learn that the fetching princess Sibylla is married to the boorish Guy de Lusignan who further shows how mean he is by insulting our boy/hero. It is soon obvious that she has a thing for Balian but, again, Scott gets around this by having his audience immediately feel the pain of poor Sibylla being married to such a brute.

According to Wikpedia.org, there are several aspects of historical accuracy to the story like the leper Baldwin IV and his sister Sibylla, however there are many more deviances like the romance between Sibylla and “Balian.”

In a brief bright spot Baldwin tells our boy/hero that he and he alone will be accountable for his actions before God and no excuses can be made for those who influenced his decisions. Self determination and personal responsibility are not politically correct ideas but, not to worry, the movie does not dwell upon them—but not before Baldwin re-emphasizes the mantra of the boy/hero, “protect the helpless.”

Balian arrives at his lands to see that not even his father knew how to dig wells for water. Humbly, the boy/hero rolls up his skirts and personally helps to dig wells.

Surprise! Princess Sibylla arrives to oogle the boy/hero.

The scene changes to muslims at prayer where we get another very brief ray of sunlight. Sibylla tells us that “their prophet says ‘submit’…Jesus says ‘decide.’”

Again, not to worry, our boy/hero quickly changes the subject to why they can’t “get it on.” Because she’s married? They do anyway! This is important because it’s completely unfounded in history (as is the role of “Balian”) and for another reason I’ll discuss shortly.

We then switch to an Arab caravan Reynald and Guy are about to savage, but not before the Christian “fanatics” in their band give out the cry “God wills it.” This is repeated in the next scene where, before Baldwin’s court regarding the incident, another Christian fanatic (looking like some sort of cleric) shouts, “There must be war! God wills it!” It’s for sure, all Christians are annoying morons.

The magnanimous Saladin is forced to march at last. But who is there to protect the innocent? —Our boy/hero, of course! He organizes a suicidal stand in which he is miraculously incapacitated without being seriously injured so that, you guessed it, he can be dragged before the Arab he was nice to, who is actually a man of prestige himself, and his mercy is repaid him. Awww.

Although his men are slaughtered, the leper-king arrives in time to pow-wow with the great Saladin. He says, “Reynald will be punished.” So Saladin takes his 200,000-man army…and turns around to go home! He’s a reasonable guy! It is subtly implied that he was at a tactical disadvantage but the warmth towards the character by Scott, as a non-fanatical man of reason is unmistakable.

The king’s march to intercept Saladin has put him on the brink of death, so he offers to kill Guy de Lusignan and marry Balian to his sister so that he can accede the throne and do lots of wonderful things! Of course the audience is saying, “Wow! Kill the bad dude, get the babe and the glory! Go for it!!”

Balian, nobly declines to the astonishment of all involved. Violating Guy’s wife in adultery is one thing, but politics is quite another!

Sadly, there is nothing here even remotely akin to reality. In fact, at this time in history, Sibylla had already given birth to a “Baldwin V” fathered by William of Montferrat whom had since died. In reality, she seems much more dedicated to Guy then Scott preferred. In an effort to please oppositional forces in the Court of Jerusalem, she annulled her marriage to him, only to remarry him!

So the evil Guy is crowned with Sibylla and then quickly leads his armies to the slaughter at the hands of the great Saladin.

The rest of the movie is all about Balian’s courageous and ingenious defense of Jerusalem, making the wonderful Saladin pay so much that he is forced to give incredibly generous terms in its surrender.

Of course Balian returns home to be a blacksmith once again, this time with his adulteress, Sibylla. Not even close to historically accurate. Do I allow Scott artistic license? Again, not when he puts out propaganda like this.

Originally, the critics attacked Orlando Bloom’s performance and I have to agree with their reasoning:

Does Bloom have the charismatic authority to hold the screen solo in an epic adventure set during the Crusades? Although he bulked up…to play the defender of Jerusalem, the answer would appear to be “no”…he simply lacks the heroic stature to command the screen. Watching him struggle to make an impact in Ridley Scott’s intermittently exciting but often ponderous epic, it’s hard not to conclude that they sent a boy to do a man’s job. ~ Tim Knight, Reel.com

It’s quite obvious that Bloom has “pretty boy’s disease”—that total absence depth of character due to good looks having provided a relatively pain-free existence. A couple of examples of extremely rare exceptions to these (in my mind, at least) are Kirk Douglas in so much of his work and, to a lesser but still surprising degree, Christian Bale as the lead in Batman Begins.

Overall, I give this movie a “2” out of a possible “10.” Scott is good at pageantry and film-craft but, if you love Jesus Christ, the content of this movie goes alternately from disingenuous to silly to inaccurate and back again. If you see it at the $1 theater or can wait until it hits the bargain racks at Blockbuster, see it only to be aware of it (we Christians do not hide from attacks).

The replay value is an absolute “0.” No sense what-so-ever in watching this more than once.