Apparently the "Kingdom of Heaven" is still too pro Christian for the New York Times

I've been following blogs that correctly identify the pro-Muslim historical inaccuracies marring Ridley Scott's new movie, Kingdom of Heaven. As most of these blogs have noted, Scott made sure that CAIR passed on his movie, which gives one a good idea of how pro-Muslim and anti-Christian it must be. Even CAIR's standards are not good enough for the New York Times though. Here's the NY Time's take:

Outside of a couple of sneering papal emissaries, this high-flown image of men at war comes about as close to real commentary on the Crusades as Mr. Scott gets in his curiously disengaged film about the Christian incursion into the Holy Land. Written by a newcomer, William Monahan, 'Kingdom of Heaven' is an ostensibly fair-minded, even-handed account of one of the least fair-minded, even-handed chapters in human history, during which European Christians descended on the Middle East for more than 200 years.

Apparently all of the Christians should have been portrayed as irredemably evil, so that audiences really get history as the NY Times would like it. Previous posts: Those lovable Saracens The distinction between jihad and the crusades explained Jihad and the Crusades