Review of Protocols of Zion (2005) by Jimg. — 12 Jul 2006

I was very disappointed in this movie. I went in thinking it would be a piece of expose journalism that convinces the viewer by simply laying out facts. Instead, it came across as a very personal and apologetic piece.

If all of the people who believe the protocols are real happen to be wacko, as Levin apparently suggests in the selection of his on-screen adversaries, then what is the point of the movie? Those who discredit the protocols are on film by Levin; those who apparently believe in the protocols are on film by someone else, except for a handful of people on the fringe.

Did Levin not want to confront people of the same caliber on the other side of the story? Did he try to interview them? It isn't clear. Also, unfortunately Levin brushes away, rather than addresses to a reasonable conclusion, the story of Israelis who were arrested and deported following 9/11 (I can't remember from the film what exactly happened, other than Levin saying something to the effect "while the situation is unclear, don't jump to conclusions.

" I guess what is most disappointing to me is that I walked away from the film with more questions than answers. Levin has "Michael Moore'd" his own message--that is, undermined the credibility of his message by APPEARING biased through making the story so personal, seeming selective in facts, and failing to confront the more clever of his adversaries.

He has played into the hand of the conspiracy theorists. That is just sad.