I am one not to mention whether a movie is good, or is not; rather I just say that I liked it, or that I did not. Rather, I prefer to appreciate the art of moviemaking, regardless.

Looking for information on the use of archival footage in Schindler's List, and the reason for some describing it as 'swindler's list', I found this article, with which I wholeheartedly agree, for those of us who know the difference. latimes dot com slash archives slash la-xpm-1994-01-30-ca-16952-story.

I use critics' reviews, sometimes, to determine what movies to favour: Going towards the ones with adverse reviews. Very often, I've found that critics are so far up themselves, they lose objectivity. I like both MG and MW movies but have still to get my head around USA humour. Shooter's conversation with the old recluse was gold. Signs humour made for good SF. However, I have no intentions of seeing a comedy with both of them. However, I wish the producers good fortune.

The reality is that 'historical' movies are undoubtedly fiction. If one doesn't like that fact, no one is forced to view them. However, there are some that do take the p**s: Braveheart, to name but one.

Sequels, imo, are very rarely as good as the original. I enjoyed Braveheart and, no doubt, shall enjoy G2 because I like D.W.'s method...and the escapism.

Having read the books and having not yet viewed the movies, I couldn't care less. By the way, the cast in the movies is very impressive and that shall be my only motivation for anticipation.

The movie, God's and Kings: Historically, there were Hebrews only. Not until after they entered what later became Israel, were the 12 tribes, including Judah, separately established. So, no: Moses was not a Jew and there was no Israelite escape from Egypt.