Review of Ba'al

Ba'al (2008 TV Movie)
4/10
BAD ARCHAEOLOGY
11 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Now I don't mind movies taking liberties with archaeology and historical facts, as long as they are not stupid with it. This one was stupid. It somehow confounded the Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew about 2,000 year ago) with Sumerian (4,000 years ago) or 12,000 years ago according to some stones in the movie. The two do not mix. They could have used some actual Sumerian/Akkadian tablets, but no one would have heard of them, hence the Dead Sea Scrolls. An old archaeologist is attempting to find and dig up 4 hidden Sumerian amulets buried around the world. These amulets were supposed to be well hidden so no one would find them and dig them up, except for maybe the one that had four markers by it! One was placed in a nuclear test site because as a test site it has a lack of air. I didn't quite grasp that one, nor did I even try to figure out how the ancient Sumerians would know this would be a nuclear test site. Now after these amulets are dug up, a beam of light (1980's special effects) shoots out up to the sky and causes destruction. Why this old archaeologist and his team is doing this is uncertain, the old man believes it may cure his cancer, but the reasoning behind the madness is uncertain. The movie has a subplot at a highly guarded military weather center, which really doesn't play much of a role, other than eat up some time and fill in some plot points. The lead actor, Jeremy London, runs around acting and looking like Brenden Fraser's clone. His inability to act is seen after the first light beam shines up to the sky and he says "Oh my God" with a severe lack of emotion. The movie looks like it was made for TV. It has no bad language, sexual scenes or innuendos, or nudity. Not even a naked statue of Ishtar. Oh yes, it also invokes those fake Bible Codes.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed