Zeitgeist: Addendum (2008)

This movie had loads of interest and requests at the store this summer. I've finally sat down to watch it today and I have to wonder if the interest stems from genuine belief and interest in the ideas that the documentary proposes, or if it's simply because the film is anti-Christianity/war/America-in-general, all that stuff we just love to hate.
I enjoyed the first chapter of the film, which discusses the Jesus myth in relation to pagan religions, and more fascinatingly (to me) how the story of Jesus might just be a personification of phenomenon regarding the sun, constellations and the equinox. It is a very fascination proposition and was presented very tangibly, however, it was also presented as fact. The film completely ignores the possibility of any other explanation of the Christian religion, and, more importantly when discussing how religion effects politics, it completely ignores the importance of why Christianity rules the nation, the history of the church itself rather than the religion. Choosing instead to focus on the stupidity of belief in Jesus, rather than discussing the much more prevalent point of belief in the church, two things which, although intimately connected, are not at all one in the same. This was somewhat of a running motif with this movie - using very understandable visuals and presenting information as absolute fact so that the story it tells is quite compelling when truthfully the way in which the film presents evidence is just as deceptive as the people are of the groups and actions it is obviously against.
The historical aspects of the film are interesting. The creator does well to give historical information, much of which I admit that I did not know, that itself is quite interesting and does, in fact have connection with the modern events he is discussing. However, the modern issues which it addresses are presented biasedly, to say the least. Skimming over details and never addressing any counter-arguments would never fly in an academic paper, I don't see why, just because something is on film and not paper, it should be passable in this instance. And I don't see how, morally, making a film in this deceptive manner makes someone any better than a government who the creator claims does the same thing, and that he is so abhorrently against.