rjl-72062 Reviews

The Book of Esther (2013)

This is horrendous. No attempt whatsoever is made to tell the true Biblical story of Esther

[1/10 · 29 December 2016]

This entire movie could be summed up as someone who doesn't like, or understand, the book of Esther; so they decide they will plug their own invented story into the backdrop of a Biblical setting. I might expect this from a secular movie company that arrogantly thinks their storytelling is more relevant and interesting than a Biblical account that has stood for thousands of years; but to see a supposedly Christian movie making company do this is mind-boggling. They are suppose to have respect for the source material, but so far they have been the ones to butcher it more than any other Esther movie I've come across.

The production values are rock bottom. The acting is terrible. That would be forgivable if they actually made an effort to faithfully convey the account of Esther based on the Bible and history.

They've tried to invent a story they probably think is more relevant to a modern American audience. The entire point of the Biblical story is lost, and it's full of anachronisms from modern American culture and values.

Rather than an accurate picture of ancient middle eastern culture where Esther could be killed for entering into the presence of the king uninvited, we see a modern American woman who suggests that things are going to have to change once they are married to be more of an equal partnership; to which the king aquieseced somewhat meekly.

Rather than an accurate story about a woman who is taken to be a concubine for a despotic king, in which they may only have on sexual encounter with her never seeing the king again unless he decides to marry her; it is replaced with a modern American tale of a woman who is getting older wondering when she will meet the right man, and involves her insisting to the king that they will have to wait before they are married before they will have any kind of physical romance.

If you want to make up your own story, with it's own values and message, then go do so - just don't force this pablum into a setting that claim to be based on the Biblical book of Esther. Although they do have a disclaimer about some things being changed, what they don't tell you is that nothing of significance about the original story has been retained aside from names.

The Crossing (2000 TV Movie)

Only a small percentage of rat poison needs to be poison to kill

[1/10 · 29 December 2016]

Although fairly well directed and performed, with an engaging story that makes you want to keep watching - The end result is a poisonous mischaracterization of the American revolution with a few major lies inserted in an otherwise sound whole.

1. They try to claim in one of the beginning scenes that Americans are fighting for "liberty and equality". No, that's the French revolution (Liberty, equality, fraternity). The American slogan would have been "life, liberty, and property" (Property was changed to the "pursuit of happiness" in the declaration of independence by Benjamin Franklin, who did not want the south to later use this phrase as an excuse to think the revolution was endorsing their right to keep slaves). The foundation of our country was the right to pursue your God given life and keep what God has given you. When you introduce the idea that we were fighting for equality that opens up the potential for major distortion of the revolution; because although "equality" sounds nice, the meaning of it in the context of the French revolution often means "equality of outcomes", or to put it another way: wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. The antithesis of American revolutionary values.

2. Elsewhere, the Hessians are depicted as mercenaries who fight for money (historical point of fact, the money all went to the ruler of the Hessian state. The soldiers were obligated to fight wherever they were commanded to and saw no personal share of the money) - which by itself would not be a big deal, if not for the fact that this is used by one of the characters to point out to Washington that the American soldiers are no better than the Hessians because they are really just fighting over the money related to taxation. Worse still, Washington is portrayed to reluctantly admit they are right. None of this is true. Although a commonly repeatedly lie that the revolutionary's primary cause was merely "taxation with representation", the truth is that it was only one minor issue amongst many more serious issues. Injustice in the judicial system, Britain abusing it's powers and taking away the representative rights of the colonies, were far more foundational problems. Taxation without representation was merely a symptom of deeper issues that involves Britain abusing the colonists, denying them various fundamental rights and due process, and moving to give them no say in their own governance. These are things the colonists had historically enjoyed, but which were coming under increasing attack as the Britain tried to assert more direct control over the colonies. Something people don't know is that taxation without representation was only the 17th problem listed in the Declaration of Independence, out of 27 issues, and was only a minor mention compared with the numerous mentions of other abuses.

3. George Washington is depicted as someone with flexible morality (portraying him as someone who is committing some kind of great offense against a business owner by using his boats, when historically he wrote a letter to the governor of the state requesting all boats be put on a particular side of the river, with no suggestion that people thought this was some undue burden on their livelyhood in the dead of winter when the river would be frozen solid in a few days anyway). Moreso it depicts Washington as someone who would freely curse and even insult his generals in front of the men to make fun of them. None of that is true. In fact, Washington would discipline soldiers who were caught cursing. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=24548 Washington is known historically to be a man of extraordinary good character, humility, and good will towards others. His saintly reputation of respect and admiration throughout our country's history is well deserved considering that his devote commitment to Christianity was the only thing that allowed him to hold power, govern justly, and then leave after eight years of his own choosing without having enriched himself in the process. France showed us, with Bonaparte, what happens when a man of lesser character gets that kind of power; crowning himself emperor and spending most of his reign drafting up the French population to fight wars. For the most part there are many positive aspects of Washington's character that comes out in Daniel's portrayal of him, which I appreciate. Unfortunately, like the film as a whole, this typifies what we see where there is a lot of good stuff going on with the film that is spoiled by the insertion of poisonous historical lies which would leave the viewer with a deeply flawed perspective of the American revolution.

These are not just minor historical foibles or creative license that can be overlooked. The first two issues especially undermine the core purpose and nature of the revolution. Given that, I must give it 1 star, despite it's entertainment value, because it has no redeeming value as historical storytelling. I would not recommend anyone watch this to learn more about what happened, without knowing about these key flaws beforehand. Nor would I use it as a teaching aid, as historical movies sometimes are, because of these fatal errors in the film. Like rat poison, the poison of historical lies may not take up much of the screen time compared with the totality of the film, but what little is there is lethal to enabling someone to come away from the film with a truthful understanding of our history. The nature of these lies would undermine's someone trust in the founding principles of our country if believed; if they thought it was nothing but a fight over taxes and our most revered founder were not even that committed to living by the principles he was suppose to be fighting for. I can see no other reason for these lies to be inserted other than for the purpose of undermining people's respect and appreciation for the country they have inherited.