kingdom of heaven

i saw kingdom of heaven yesterday. wow. what a lot of trouble to go through to make a movie about the crusades that couldn't be accused of arab-hating. it kind of begs the question: exactly why *did* you make a movie about the crusades, then, right about now, *sir* ridley scott? might it have had anything to do with the november 2001 meeting between bush administration officials--karl rove--and hollywood execs--rupert murdoch, i.e., fox, i.e., the studio that produced this movie? besides being convoluted, heavy-handed and just kind of stuck in there, kingdom of heaven's ersatz religious tolerance quite simply evaporates at the climax when the swarthy sarecens with gnashing teeth storm the christopher gate chanting "allah akhbar!" the hero of the film is of course an englishman who is fighting the arabs for the sake of the people of jerusalem; not, we are adamantly told, in the name of christianity. the film also manages somehow to celebrate the christian surrender of jerusalem to saladin as a victory.

that having been said, i loved this movie. i was so rooting for the underdog, and the jewelry was fantastic, and jeremy irons was good. (but why oh why did liam neeson have to be in this?)