The 20 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies Ever

[steve2470]

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2013/the-20-most-historically-inaccurate-movies-ever/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_63892

I'll just post the list:

20. Ed Wood
19. Man On The Moon
18. The Social Network
17. The Iron Lady
16. Elizabeth: The Golden Age
15. Frost/Nixon
14. Erin Brockovich
13. JFK
12. Quiz Show
11. Midnight Express
10. Amadeus
9. The Doors
8. A Beautiful Mind
7. Evita
6. The Untouchables
5. Lawrence Of Arabia
4. Sid And Nancy
3. Shine
2. Alexander
1. Braveheart

[Electric Monk]

1. Iron Sky

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/

The Nazis set up a secret base on the dark side of the moon in 1945...

[steve2470]

3. I need to see that lol nt

[Iggo]

40. Yeah, you do.

It's eight kindsa great!

[zappaman]

22. i thought IRON SKY was based on a true story?

I like it in a cheesy kinda way...

[DetlefK]

142. Only if Sarah Palin wins in 2016.

"Yes, she can!"

[librechik]

171. it's true that the Nazis were rumoured to have space travel

that's about as close to truth as it gets.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. I totally believed it until I saw the guy riding the motorcycle across the lunar surface.

Everyone knows internal combustion engines don't work in a vacuum!

[GreenStormCloud]

43. It isn't intended to be historical. N/T

[stevebreeze]

129. how about hysterical?

[NBachers]

135. I'll endorse Iron Sky

[SomethingFishy]

183. NetFlix is pushing that one on me,

I was actually planning to watch it in hopes of a high "cheese" factor. It could not be any worse that "Nazi's At The Center Of The Earth" (a SyFy channel original).

[DavidDvorkin]

2. All movies based on the Bible.

[LeftofObama]

4. Good one!

[hunter]

6. Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" must certainly be a contender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Christ

I've never seen it, and I don't plan to.

[Nye Bevan]

10. "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed...."

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and although there is little agreement on the historicity of gospel narratives and their theological assertions of his divinity,[5][6][7][8]biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30–36 AD.[12][13][14] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek.[18][19][20] Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[21][22][23][24]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[MADem]

35. And he probably looked more like Yassir Arafat than Jim Caviezel! nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

121. You're exactly right... Arafat looked markedly older.

Or were you talking about Arafat's nose?

[MADem]

122. No--the "real" Jesus. He was from Nazareth, in Palestine.

Have a look at this article--take the time to read it, it's really interesting:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186

Here's "the real face of Jesus" per forensic artists:



And here's Yassir as a younger man:



Those two look nothing like that Euro guy that Mel Gibson cast in the role....

[Iggo]

41. .

[DavidDvorkin]

54. Exactly.

[MADem]

143. I'm going to take it that your "." and mocking smilie mean you disagree with the

assertion that an historical (not the Bible story representation of the magic fellow with the long hair and blue eyes) Jesus did not exist at all? That there was no guy at all upon whom the Biblical tales were based?

It's really only fair, if you're refuting an assertion, to go beyond a bit of punctuation and a smilie. If you want your POV to be granted any credence, that is...!

[Iggo]

144. .

[MADem]

147. So you don't want your POV to be granted any credence, then. Thanks for clearing that up. nt

[Iggo]

148. .

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. Could virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Mithra existed?

It has been said that copying is the sincerest form of flattery.

For an example of a scholarly work in which the author presents an analysis showing that Jesus is a fictional character invented by a Roman emperor, see Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus by Joseph Atwill.

[MADem]

146. I found the website for your source on the internet, for those who are interested.

http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/

I have to say, after only a brief perusal of the website, that I'm not terribly impressed with this guy's scholarship, regardless of how one feels about the existence of a (Biblical vs. Historical) Jesus.

He seems like a bit of a flake to me, with his "free reports" and such:

Joseph Atwill has written a paper which explains his findings, that reveal the true identity of the Jesus Christ that Christians have been worshipping for nearly 2,000 years. In the Gospels, Jesus Christ speaks of a character called the Son of Man who is to come at some point in the future. Although Christians have been waiting for Jesus' return, Atwill's findings reveal that the Son of Man has already come and reveals his true identity based on historic fact.

To receive this free report, simply fill in your email address below and it will be sent to you within 24 hours. You can be assured that we never share or sell your email address to ANY other entity EVER!

Please be sure to add the caesarsmessiah.com domain to your address book, especially if you or your service provider use bulk mail or spam filters.
If you do not receive the report within 24 hours, please contact us at
info at caesarsmessiah dot com.

He has many ardent fans and somewhat fewer detractors over at AMAZON as well; a perusal of their reviews of his book will give those contemplating a purchase an idea of what to expect. Based on their comments (the cheerleaders and the detractors, both), I wouldn't waste my money. I think this guy's work appeals to people who enjoy convoluted conspiracy theories. I am more of an Occam's Razor type, myself.

[DavidDvorkin]

69. "Citations needed"

[Nye Bevan]

73. Here ya go:

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (now a secular agnostic who was formerly Evangelical) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Micjhael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

[MNBrewer]

108. Yet none of that constitutes proof.

It's basically along the same lines as "9 out of 10 dentists agree".

[DavidDvorkin]

110. Just assertions

Four people asserting that Jesus existed means nothing. Where is the evidence?

[Nye Bevan]

113. It's the overwhelming consensus of reputable historians.

Of course, you are free to believe whatever you want. JFK Junior's plane was sabotaged? Elvis is actually alive? Jesus as a historical figure did not exist? It's not like there's any shortage of crackpot, out-of-the-mainstream theories about stuff.

[DavidDvorkin]

115. You've given us four names

Does that constitute an overwhelming consensus of reputable historians?

For that matter, can't your reputable hstorians give us evidence and not just assertions?

Asking for evidence before accepting the historicity of Jesus is equivalent to asking for evidence before accepting the crackpot theories you list. You've got it reversed.

[Nye Bevan]

116. If you won't acknowledge that an overwhelming majority of secular historians

accept that Jesus (as a historical person) existed, there is really no point in continuing this.

[DavidDvorkin]

117. I acknowledge that you keep asserting that that is the case

Moreover, no matter how many people make that assertion, I want to see evidence. Assertion is not enough, no matter who is doing the asserting.

[sabrina 1]

137. How do we know anyone we never met existed? Did Pontius Pilot really exist do you think?

There is no way of knowing that people we are told existed thousands of years ago actually did. All of them could simply be figments of someone's imagination. Or maybe they did exist. It's just as believable that someone who has had more influence on the world than Pontius Pilot eg, existed than anyone else.

[DavidDvorkin]

140. There is actual contemporary Roman evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate

That's the difference between him and Jesus.

[MADem]

150. There is? Is it "evidence" or someone "asserting" that this person existed?

Frankly, the reason I think an historical Jesus/Isa (to say nothing of Moses, and Ibrahim/Abraham) existed is because "assertions" come from a variety of sources. I've never laid eyes on George Washington, I've seen paintings of him, and etchings, and read about him in history, and I believe he existed because of these "assertions."

The whole debate about Jesus as a magical figure, as portrayed in the Bible stories, is a different kettle of fish altogether, but I do think that there are sufficient assertions that he existed as an historical figure.

[Lionel Mandrake]

154. Is there?

Can you cite a scholarly source describing the Roman evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate?

[DavidDvorkin]

157. Here's an important bit of evidence

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pilate.php

[Lionel Mandrake]

160. Thank you.

This seems pretty convincing. It's conceivable that the stone is a forgery, but that seems unlikely since there is no mention of any controversy in the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

[Moonwalk]

181. How do we know anyone existed? Well, usually there is corroborating evidence from several sources...

...like with Julius Caesar. His friends write about him, his enemies, his relations. And there are statues with his name on them from different places, by different artists that seem to be of the same face. And there are stories of him from people he conquered--and there are documents that he wrote that correlate to the stories of the people he conquered showing that both agree he conquered them.

And sometimes, if we're really lucky, we also get coffins and bones. It's really wonderful when we can find a skull, reconstruct the face, and match it to all those paintings or statues of said historical person. That's great proof that they existed. So we can say there's a lot of evidence that certain people existed especially if they were famous enough to be written about, drawn, given a burial spot, etc. It may still be hard to prove what was said about them (what they were like, what they did) was true**--but we can at least verify that they existed.

The existence of those who are part of an oral rather than written tradition are harder to prove--and this includes oral storytelling that may not have been written down for several years after the fact. Especially if it was written by those who were not there to witness the events and/or did not personally know anyone who was there. Likewise, even if the historian DID know someone who was there, said witness/historian may not be all that reliable. The farther back in history you get, the less diligent the historians were--they'd believe what they heard and write it down without searching for corroborating evidence. Like, for example, they'd write down that someone raised the dead--told to them by a friend of a friend or maybe one "witness"--without finding other witnesses to the event or the dead person himself (the legend is that Lazarus and his sisters moved to France--shouldn't historians have looked him up? Or maybe the progeny from him or his sister to confirm the story?). Thus, it is *much* harder to prove the people in such stories existed, and even harder to prove that they did what the stories say they did. So maybe Pontius Pilot didn't exist.

But Julius Caesar did; we CAN be reasonable assured of that. Of course, the closer to the now we get, the better evidence we have--and the better the historians are at documenting their evidence of that person's existence. Official documents, diaries, letters, photographs, newsreels, radio recordings and finally internet videos. All these allow us to "know" that someone we never met existed (unless you want to get very philosophical and question how we know anything).

**Special note: There is a recent biography of Anne Boleyn that argues, convincingly, that most of what we know about her is from unreliable and outright lying gossip from one of her worst enemies (Spanish ambassador who worshiped Queen Katherine). Said enemy not only wrote a lot of nasty stories about Anne--and passed on any that were going around at court--but his letters are still in tact and among the few that offer any documentation on Boleyn. So past historians have relied on just them, thus perpetuating a lot of misinformation about her. Letters that might have told us more of the truth were deliberately burned (hers, the kings letters to her, etc.). And there are no accurate paintings (these, too, were erased by Henry VIII). What this historian has found out from the scraps (letters from less bias sources, etc.) demolishes a lot of false stories we have (she didn't have a sixth finger, for example). However, the author continually makes sure in this book to distinguish what can be "known" by way of real evidence vs. what can only be pieced together and surmised. Like exactly what color Anne Boleyn's hair was (from descriptions, the author deduces that was reddish-brown, but she admits that is a deduction--without a good painting or actual hair, there is no proof).

This is the difference between a good historian who tries to pin down what can be known, vs. a bad one who just repeats stories without trying to find out if they were true.

[truebrit71]

166. Aaah, consensus, not evidence is sufficient...

....got it...

[gcomeau]

84. And please show me a movie based on the bible...

...that portrays the life of Jesus as "Galiean Jew who lived in Galilee and Judea, got baptized and then got killed by the government"... as opposed to "divine son of the almighty creator of the universe, spennt his days walking on water and performing other magical miracles, then near the end of the story he rises from the dead...."


You know, that tells it the way the historians back up, as opposed to a way that wildly differs from anything they're willing to back up. Seeing as we're talking historical accuracy here and all.

[defacto7]

134. Sorry, that is so incorrect it's boggling.

I'm not getting into this old and completely divisive argument for the 400th time on the Internet, but I had to make the statement because most of your points come from incredible supper-support of a dogma for the sake of dogma. Most "modern scholars of antiquity" do not hold the historicity of the Jesus of biblical texts as a fact or even close. "Biblical scholars" from religious backgrounds lean more in that direction because of the non-scientific approach to the question but even they are not all in agreement, just in the greater number because of a search for proof not truth. The closest that scholars of antiquity, as you put it, come to putting an actual man in the position Jesus of the New Testament is to say that "it's possible" but not likely based on lack of evidence AND evidence to the contrary concerning the Roman political climate, its track record, and its needs at the time, plus the proven false statements of the only actual sources in verifiable texts.

In other words, if you are looking to believe something, you will find people to support it. If you are looking for facts in data, you may or may not find an answer, but you will most certainly come closer to the truth.

The floor is yours. I won't continue the subject because it is not that interesting to me anymore and it's futile to argue with beliefs that are founded in an immovable construct.

[Lithos]

152. Based on faith or fact?

There is that lack of proof thing.

[Bake]

182. It's not even faithful to the accounts in the gospels ...

39 lashes? In the movie, more like 500. Just an example ...

Bake

[hunter]

187. Yep, that's what I heard.

The movie paid as much attention to modern historians as "Braveheart" did.

I'd rather watch Jesus Christ Superstar, it's probably a more accurate historical drama.

[Bake]

188. And the music is way better too!

Bake

[PM Martin]

58. LOL!

thumbsup:

[oxymoron]

174. Precisely. (nt)

[Warpy]

177. Yes, especially the ones starring Charlton Heston

I don't think there's been a more wooden "star" in the whole history of cinema, especially when he was playing god or Moses or some other biblical figure who never shit.

It was hard enough watching that stuff when I was a kid making wisecracks with my cousins (grandparents were big on sending us to bible movies to get us out of their hair). It's absolutely impossible to watch now.

Another of my pet hates was "Gangs of NY" because they got the decades wrong. I also disliked Titanic--there was NO WAY for a steerage passenger to get anywhere near first class. Ship's crew had keys to get through the locked gates. Passengers were kept where their class said they belonged.

The ship also broke apart the wrong way, but I don't think they had the latest information at the time it was filmed.

[dlwickham]

5. Watched the end of Elizabeth last night

very interesting

[longship]

7. JJ Abrams' Star Trek reboot.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. But that flick does huge damage to well documented history of the future. And the FLARES!!! They burn your eyeballs out.

[burnodo]

103. I agree about the flares

as a cinematic device, they get old really fast. I actually came to like the 09 un-canon reboot. Good to see the franchise break through 4 decades moving into 5.

[arcane1]

133. Don't get me started. Flares are no better than a microphone dropping from the top of the screen

Because yes, when I go out for two hours of escapist science fiction, I want to be constantly reminded that I'm watching a movie filmed with cameras.

[longship]

141. And that 35 years of iconic SciFi culture can be casually disregarded!

For no other purpose than to milk the franchise for whatever riches it can provide.

JJ Abrams is a greedy asshole who only sees Star Trek as an opportunity for money.

[Moonwalk]

180. But it is NOT disregarded! In fact, if you recall the "Mirror, Mirror" universe, it is regarded--

--respected and used. Meaning: it is QUITE clearly stated in one of the original episodes that forms the pillars of this iconic SciFi culture that there are alternate universes where the SAME people had different lives due to a difference in certain historical occurrences.

Abrams didn't *erase* 35 years of Star Trek history nor did he in any way damage it. He simply used a "historical" fact established by that history and showed us a new universe where things happened a bit differently with the same characters. The universe where they happened the way you know them still exists, and it all still happened as the series presented it.

No damage to the historical future done. No casual disregard of it either, and, in fact, his being a greedy asshole seeing Trek as a way to make money is also historically accurate, part of the culture and traditional.

[brewens]

8. The Doors jumps out at me. That was depressing. Every day couldn't have been a bad day. You knew

that. Kilmer was awesome as Morrison though. Add Platoon to the list. Give Stone another one on there.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

161. Platoon isn't based on one specific unit or story

It was an amalgamation of different things he experienced during his own time in Vietnam with plenty of dramatic license. It's not intended to be a purely biographical piece like The Doors, The Iron Lady, Elizabeth and some of the other films on this list.

And even if it was, I'd wager it's a helluva lot more representative of what people actually experienced over than there than that piece of shit Greent Berets starring John Wayne was.

[brewens]

173. I watched Stone's company commander on C-Span2, plugging his book. I can't remember the

exact tittle, Charlie Company maybe, whatever company it was in the battalion he was commanding. He said the start of the movie was spot on accurate. Mainly showing them arriving in country and then out humping through the bush. After that, not so much.

He was Stones company commander for his first tour, Stone did two. He said he remembered him as a gung-ho trooper. He had a couple problems with the movie. The drug use depicted for one thing. He claimed at the time he was there, no way. Not out in the bush anyway. Maybe an officer like that would be oblivious to what was going on, but I'd say those guys would know better. He did say he couldn't say stuff like that didn't happen in the later years. Didn't one of the guys actually sneak off to fire up some heroine?

He also talked to Stone about just who the two Sargent's might have been. That was purely fiction, Stone told him so. Kind of an amalgamation of two Sargent's he knew and what might have happened.

Then he criticized it for depicting "the super platoon' that did everything you've ever read about from Vietnam. That part I'd agree with. Then again, it wasn't that bad because all of that stuff did happen somewhere to someone. I wasn't there but have read every book on it I could get my hands on, at least up to the late 80's.

A couple other things that company commander said about Vietnam I found interesting. He claims every major operation he was involved in was a tactical success, with by WWII standard, acceptable casualties. I don't really doubt that, he was just saying his guys always got the job done. Also that there were a lot higher percentage of volunteers than you would think. The recruiters really did a good job. The percentage of enlisted men vs draftees was comparable to WWII. You'd think that it would be just the opposite.

I can actually see how that could be. I'd like to see some serious research on that. At least early in the war, I can imagine a lot of guys getting stoked up and enlisting to go fight the communists. Just like their dads singed up for WWII. Then the image of everyone mobbing the recruitment centers during WWII might be a little overblown. My dad said he just waited to be drafted, even though he was more than willing to go. He was needed on the farm and his older brother was already in the army. The nearest recruitment center was 300 miles away. Then there were probably more draft dodgers in WWII than they lead us to believe. I can see it being a lot closer statistically than you'd think.

[Springslips]

163. I can't get over the fact that when Jim stalks and peeps on his soon to be girlfriend

She's playing his record years before it was recorded. That add a new level to historically inaccuracy.

[hughee99]

9. I'm assuming this is based on movies that at least gave some lip service

to being accurate, right? I we didn't learn about Abe Lincoln killing vampires in school, or, of course, Bubba ho tep where an elderly JFK, Elvis and a re-animated Egyptian Mummy live in an East Texas nursing home together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubba_Ho-tep

[steve2470]

11. I have to see this too lol

[SomethingFishy]

184. Bubba Ho-Tep is AWESOME!

A must see for fans of Cult Films. How anyone could take a script that has Bruce Campbell as Elvis and Ossie Davis as JFK (Yeah I know, he's black, you have to see the movie) and actually make it work as a fun movie was beyond me, but he did it and it is awesome.. He being Don Coscarelli who directed Phantasm and the recent John Dies At The End.

Last month it was announced that work was to begin on a sequel to Bubba Ho-Tep, called Bubba Nosferatu, with Elvis facing off against a coven of "She-Vampires"...

[Generic Other]

12. No Disney?

Pocahantas and her adorable raccoon sidekick Meeko?

Bad.

[Nye Bevan]

13. This is a pretty flawed article.

Even the article acknowledges that Quiz Show was "mostly true".

[Posteritatis]

20. A lot of them seem to be "this aspect is off therefore WORST THING EVAR."

If they were that concerned about the actual historical accuracy they'd have something to say about, say, Braveheart beyond the existence of kilts, and would have had a very different list anyway..

[XemaSab]

14. The Big Year

[1-Old-Man]

15. "The Green Berets", John Wayne, final scene, the sun sets in the east

Final scene in this Viet Nam story, John Wayne is looking at the sun set on the South China Sea.

[Tom Ripley]

24. Also the "liberal journalist" sees the error of his ways and embraces the war effort without...

receiving a financial payoff for his conversion.

[panader0]

47. Wasn't it filmed in the Philippines?

[YeahSureRight]

93. It was fillmed in GA, mostly Ft Benning

It is painfully obvious that the movies was filled in the US South when you see red clay everywhere in many scenes of Vietnam.

George Takei played a bad ass ARVN with some funny lines in the movie even in scenes with the Duke.

[Glorfindel]

106. I spent a year in Nha Trang, and I can testify that the sun NEVER set over the South China Sea

But I did see a huge double rainbow arcing across Hon Tre Island the first day I was there. Very pretty country thereabouts.

[arely staircase]

72. no kidding

that movie and especially the final scene is funny.

[whistler162]

16. Missed Born on the Fourth of July!

The seen about the anti-war protest at Syracuse University. While there was one it was peaceful and the then chief of police, Sardino, worked with the students to keep peaceful.

[Archae]

26. Oliver Stone can not do accurate history to same his life.

The worst being "JFK."

Ok, ok, Stone did get two things correct.

Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas.
Clay Shaw was put on trial.

Other than that, the movie is fiction.

[Waiting For Everyman]

78. Utter nonsense.

[neverforget]

17. Armageddon with Bruce Willis

[GreenStormCloud]

49. It is a spoof. It isn't supposed to be accurate.

Armageddon doesn't take itself seriously and plays for laughs. So I give it a lot of freedom from facts.

Deep Impact, on the same theme at about the same time, pretended to take the subject matter seriously so I don't give it the same slack that I gave Armageddon. DI was terrible in that regard. Huge plot holes. The worst being that the comet is seen and discovered by a high school kid, naked eye, at sea level in a heavily light polluted area, yet the U.S. gov't and Russia manage to keep it secret for a year and a half. Doesn't anybody in the rest of the world look up? And it got worse from there.

[neverforget]

56. Maybe I should have put

that on my post.

[Socialistlemur]

92. Armageddon sure stank

I think they had a cheap budget. From the "oil refinery" to the cockamamie asteroid it sure was pure garbage.

[GreenStormCloud]

118. It isn't on my "watch again on DVD" list either. N/T

[LittleBlue]

18. Spartacus

Good movie but riddled with inaccuracies.

[patrice]

76. Huh? You mean I'm not Spartacus? Does that mean that I have to let all of the Helots I

enslaved go?

[Cooley Hurd]

19. The movie "Pearl Harbor" (Ben Affleck) was unwatchable...

The inclusion of decommissioned Knox-class frigates as part of the scenery just ruined it (these ships were introduced in the mid-1960's). The only part of the movie that had any semblance of realism was the destruction of the USS Arizona (which was all CG).

[Posteritatis]

21. I watched that and "The Patriot" in the same week; I still have scars. (nt)

[1-Old-Man]

23. That is because the name Affleck and the word watchable can not be used in the same sentence.

[MADem]

37. Never mind the historical details...the ACTING was ghastly!

And the script bit the big one! How hard is it to come up with a compelling story that is wrapped up in that fine slice of history? Harder than we think, apparently!!!!!

So much money to make that film, so many wonderful sets, so much great wardrobe...an opportunity SQUANDERED.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. I grant movies some flexibility on stuff like that.

Getting the right equipment for period movies can be very difficult. The movie Tora, Tora, Tora had the same problem. A destroyer had a Weapon Alpha on a forward mount which didn't exist in WWII.

[Cooley Hurd]

55. I do too, but the Knox-class frigates went way over the line.

They just DON'T look like ANYTHING from that era.

[Chipper Chat]

65. I watched this movie in 1971 with my college roomie (Japanese).

He went ballistic at the end at the line "I think we have awakened a sleeping giant." He was laughing and said "he (Yamomoto) never said that!"

[davidpdx]

124. Yes, I hated this movie

It tried to do the same thing that was done in Titanic, take a historical event and romanticize it.

[jberryhill]

139. That movie made me cheer for the Japanese!

I was like, "Get 'em! Blow these fuckers up, so I don't have to sit here for another hour of their insipid lives!"

[Jenoch]

155. Also Jimmy Doolittle did not

use fighter pilots that were on Pearl as pilots for the B-25s that bombed Japan in April 1942.

[liberalhistorian]

25. Just an FYI regarding one of my favorite movies

Amadeus: It was not meant to be an accurate historical depiction, Peter Shaffer, who wrote both the play and the movie, was always very clear and upfront about that and still is. Since we do not know, and will never know, what actually killed Mozart, it has been a subject of great curiosity, speculation and research almost from the time of his untimely death. It was likely just an illness, given the times and his poverty, but he, himself, voiced a suspicion of having been poisoned by those who may have been jealous of his talent while on his deathbed.

Now, that was probably just the delirium of a feverish, dying man, but we will never entirely know for sure. Shaffer was simply doing what writers do, using his imagination to come up with a fictional account of what may have happened. It was not a documentary or a truly "historical" movie and not meant to be. So it's kinda unfair for it to have been included on this list.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. I declare you to be more astute than the author of the OP

This is absolutely the case, I could expand on it but I have to cook an intentionally anachronistic dinner in honor of Derek Jarman.

[Le Taz Hot]

63. Re: Mozart's cause of death

You're right in that we don't know his cause of death but there has been some speculation that, in that he had scarlet fever as a child, this most likely weakened his heart which made him more susceptible to other illnesses.

At the end, they also had Salieri as the person he dictated the Requiem to when, in fact, it was Susmeyer, a student of Mozart's. Mozart did finish the first two movements but he only had sketches for the next couple. Susmeyer sort of filled in the rest based on the previous completed movements and the sketches.

[liberalhistorian]

71. You are quite correct about Susmeyer

finishing Mozart's final masterpiece, the Requiem. I think he stayed pretty faithful to what Mozart had in mind and wanted. Again, Amadeus was just a movie and not meant to be historical fact or a documentary. There was far more drama in Salieri's receiving the musical dictation and ultimately being responsible for his death, and drama and conflict make for interesting movies. I think it helps that Shaffer is pretty upfront and clear always that it was not meant to be a historical depiction, that it was just from his own imagination. Had he pulled an Oliver Stone and claimed that it was, then there'd be more of a problem. Stone is never accurate in any of his historical movies despite his claims otherwise.

[DeltaLitProf]

82. Incorrect: Sussmeyer's work starts pretty late in the Requiem

Mozart wrote more than a mere two movements. Sussmayer is considered to have only written the last three, and those were heavily based on Mozart's own ideas.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZjFqJy1bE-sC&pg=PA42&dq=Sussmayr+Mozart+Requiem&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YPGqUcOxIY-I9QSh8IDQBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sussmayr%20Mozart%20Requiem&f=false

[Le Taz Hot]

100. What can I say?

It's been like 30 years since my last music history class so I thought I was doing pretty good remembering that much. So I was off by a couple of movements and thank you Mr. Technical.

[DeltaLitProf]

80. We DO know he was not poisoned

Mozart's symptoms just don't accord with poisoning. The most recent studies have concluded he likely had strep throat which destroyed his kidneys.

http://www.chron.com/news/bizarre/article/Cause-of-Mozart-s-death-revealed-218-years-1735278.php

In any case, this was one of the worst tragedies in music history. Imagine what Mozart would have written had he lived to hear of the innovations Beethoven and Rossini were bringing to orchestration.

[Warpy]

81. Well, they weren't quite as poor as was portrayed

and he wasn't dumped into a pauper's grave. His grave was unmarked because of regulations that bodies be buried without embalming and without markers within the city in the crowded urban cemeteries. He shared his unmarked accommodations with at least one Baron and one Count. His grave has never been found for certain, but a plaque has been placed where it is likely to be, as that part of the cemetery was active at the time of his death.

Had he been a pauper, he'd most likely have been buried outside the city walls, where it was considerably cheaper.

Speculation now is that he had Asperger's, something that would explain both his extraordinary musical talent and his inability to spot emotional cues and conform to court protocol.

He actually lived rather well in a time when if you wanted to listen to music, you had to buy sheet music and play it, yourself on whatever instrument you had mastered.

[scarletwoman]

120. I totally agree that it's unfair to include Amadeus on this list. It never claimed to be historical.

It's one of my favorite movies, too. And I never once took it to be anything other than what it is, a fictional dramatic rendering of Mozart's life and times.

[6000eliot]

28. Mississippi Burning

turned the friggin' FBI into heroes of the Civil Rights Movement.

[MinM]

112. Aside from portraying J Edgar as a defender of Civil Rights...

it was pretty good.

A Perversion of the Past (MISSISSIPPI BURNING)

For most of its history, including the 60s, the FBI has been a racist organization. This isn’t simply a matter of hearsay or folk wisdom; it’s amply demonstrated in such places as I.F. Stone’s 1961 article, “The Negro, the FBI and Police Brutality,” James Farmer’s Lay Bare the Heart, and any Martin Luther King biography you care to pick. (The protracted persecution of King by J. Edgar Hoover is now part of the public record.) It’s even come to light recently, when a black FBI agent brought charges of racial harassment against his colleagues. In 1964, of course, there was no such thing as a black FBI agent anywhere in the U.S.

Unfortunately, the central narrative premise of Mississippi Burning sets up the FBI as the sole heroic defender of the victims of southern racism in 1964, which is more than a little disgusting. Embracing the premise unconditionally — unless one counts a single fleeting remark from a redneck, to a journalist, that “J. Edgar Hoover said Martin Luther King was a Communist,” which the film neither confirms nor privileges — the film tampers more than a little with historical facts: it subverts the history of the civil rights movement itself...

http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/?p=7601

[liberalhistorian]

126. I so completely agree on that.

That movie literally made me sick when I saw it. It not only turned the FBI into the heroes that they most assuredly WERE NOT, but it made the REAL heroes, the African-Americans who were suffering so deeply under the heavy, crushing boot of segregation, oppression and persecution yet who had the courage to stand up against it despite the very real risk of losing their lives, and especially after seeing others lose their lives, look like blubbering, pansy cowards.

I remember meeting James Farmer, Jr., when I was in college at Kent State in the late 80's; he'd been sponsored by the Black Students Association but there were, we were all glad to see, as many white students attending as black students. This man who'd done so much to improve both conditions for his people and racial reconciliation, and who'd started his work long before the 60's by founding CORE (Congress of Racial Equality), was one of the most electrifying, charismatic, dynamic individuals I'd ever met. He was old and blind by this point and was nearing the end of his life, but he was as determined as ever that his work carry on and was one of the few people I'd ever met who truly had little sense of any racial boundaries and he wanted others to be the same.

During the Q and A period after his speech, someone asked about Mississippi Burning and how he felt about the tremendously inaccurate and insulting portrayal of African-Americans, as well as the idolization of, and fawning attitude toward, the FBI. It was the closest I saw him come to real and strong anger up to then. He said that it made the FBI seem like the "conquering heroes" come "swooping down to save the day for the poor, sniveling, huddled Negroes (the exact word he used), "Heigh-Ho Silver, here we are, you're safe now", when "nothing could have been more wrong". He said that, regarding the FBI, "we dragged them kicking and screaming down to MS, it was the last place they wanted to be and the last thing they wanted to do. Hoover himself hated us and considered Martin to be a communist".

Man, Farmer HATED the movie and it's very easy to understand why. I've never forgotten that. I used to have a tape of his whole appearance that I tape-recorded at the time, but, unfortunately, it seems to have gotten lost over the many years and many moves and location changes.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. "most" inaccurate? Hardly.

Like Ed Wood- they've taken one scene as evidence of the whole movie being historically inaccurate. Dare I say it that EVERY "historical" movie has at least one made-up scene.

[Calista241]

30. Inglorious Bastards

But it was awesome in its historical inaccuracy.

[Chisox08]

42. Just like Django Unchained

[jonthebru]

66. I really like that line!

"It was awesome in its historical inaccuracy."
I'm gonna use it... in the screen play I'm writing.

This whole post is fun, but nothing beats Abe Lincoln fighting vampires!

[SomethingFishy]

186. I was actually enjoying the Abe Lincoln Vampire movie

right up until the Vampire threw a horse at Abe... I mean really, who throws a horse?

[Ian David]

31. Also, this movie should be on the list...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045886/

[pokerfan]

32. Before even seeing the list

I was going to say Braveheart.

[Cleita]

33. Most fictional movies based on true events really are fiction. No one

should think they are getting a history lesson from them. They are telling a story for entertainment purposes. The only movies that should be accurate are documentaries and many of them also fail at that. I could expand that list to a hundred and more.

[steve2470]

159. completely agree

I'm glad this thread has been entertaining, despite the inaccuracy and flaws of the article.

[tblue]

34. Does that mean Star Wars is less historically inaccurate?

Or Twilight Zone: The Movie? "Wanna see something really scary?"

[aristocles]

38. Historic accuracy matters not at all.

Are they tales well told? That's all that matters. Wile away a few hours with a box of over-priced popcorn. It's just pop culture. Just enjoy the slumming.

One shouldn't expect historical lessons from movies.

[Posteritatis]

48. You're right of course

One of my guilty pleasures as someone with a couple of history degrees is Kingdom of Heaven (specifically, the far superior director's cut). It runs fast and loose with the history like most other historical films, but at the end the movie's really talking about here and now more than the late 1100s, so that's okay.

That said, I don't think it's impossible to do a well-told tale that's also historically aware. Difficult, yes, but I'd like to see it done a little more.

[uriel1972]

87. Unfortunately it seems that many people do learn their history from movies...

So Historical accuracy may mean something when hagiographies of George W Bush start appearing on the screen.

[intaglio]

39. The Conqueror - Starring John Wayne as

Ghengis Khan

Salome - Where she Danced starring Yvonne de Carlo
Synopsis, please be aware that the film makes this even sillier than it sounds.

Just after Lee's surrender an American journalist meets a Prussian officer in Virginia. It is established that the Prussian is an arrogant twit but a deadly duelist.

Scene then shifts to Vienna where the journalist meets a dancer with whom the Prussian has become infatuated. She, in turn falls for the journalist who persuades her to spy on the Prussian High Command of whom the officer is a member. They give the plans they have found to the Austrians who the Prussians are about to invade - but it is hopeless and they have to flee to the USA pursued by the Prussian.

In the USA they start a touring theatre company which debut the exciting and risqué new show called Salome in a lawless Arizona town. The town and the show are held up by a bandit but .... the leader is an ex-Confederate gentleman who is persuaded to give the money back by Ms de Carlo and in her honour the town is renamed "Salome, Where She Danced." Ms de Carlo then takes up with the reformed bandit who leads her to San Francisco.

In San Francisco she falls for a Russian count who gives her many things including funding for her career but ... who should show up but the nasty Prussian. IIRC the final duel is fought in the snow, in Alaska.

I have no doubt that Lola Montez (on whose life this film is supposedly based) was spinning in her grave. It was Lola's performance as Salome that made an Arizona town call themselves by that name.

[L0oniX]

46. "Ms de Carlo then takes up with the reformed bandit" Well at least she ended up with Herman Munster.

[L0oniX]

45. Sid was in a movie??? Did he use a lot of duct tape???

[panader0]

50. I've seen most of those

I knew at the time that they were historically incorrect, but hey, they're movies!
There are hundreds that could be added to the list. Old oaters about outlaws and almost every movie that portrays history takes some degree of license. I'm in it for the entertainment. I don't rely on movies to educate me about history.

[FuzzyRabbit]

52. Birth of a Nation

[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_a_Nation|

[StrayKat]

53. I thought U-571 might make the list. nt

[OmahaBlueDog]

74. U 571 is an action adventure fiction story

..that is very loosely based on efforts to obtain an Enigma machine from a sub.

There really were U Boats
There really were Enigma machines

pretty much everything else was made up. Also, they missed out on a great sequel opportunity, as they had the perfect cast to make a remake of "Crash Dive"

[StrayKat]

109. I think it meets the criteria.

I guess as with all the other movies selected it has to do with where the line is drawn between fiction and historical account. However, the movie screenwriter himself admitted that it was a bastardization of history, and said he wouldn't do it again:

Ayer told BBC Radio 4's The Film Programme that he "did not feel good" about suggesting Americans captured the Enigma code rather than the British.

"It was a distortion... a mercenary decision to create this parallel history in order to drive the movie for an American audience," he said.
-http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5263164.stm

So, as far as meeting the criteria, I think it does. It certainly was viewed as a big historical blunder at the time as Bosonic pointed out.

[Bosonic]

83. The Guardian film reviewer thought so

U-571: You give historical films a bad name

This 2000 film about a US submarine crew's attempt to steal an Enigma machine from a German U-boat was so inaccurate that it was damned by the UK parliament as an affront to the real sailors. And to make matters worse, it stars Jon Bon Jovi.

...

Verdict

The only honest thing about U-571 is its tagline: "Nine men are about to change history."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/feb/25/u-571-reel-history

[davidpdx]

123. The movie was terrible

But Jon Bon Jovi isn't that bad.

[cynatnite]

57. I can't believe 'The Bible' isn't on that list. n/t

[Eddie Haskell]

60. Argo

Zero Dark Thirty

[arthritisR_US]

86. I so agree 100+!

[tabasco]

61. We Were Soldiers

Glorifies war and conveniently left out the second, tragic day of the Ia Drang battle

[jmowreader]

62. And in the "coming soon" department...

They're making a movie about Ronald Reagan.

http://reaganfilm.com

You KNOW there won't be an accurate thing in that piece of shit.

[JPZenger]

64. Truth is more interesting than fiction

It is a real shame when the true story is fascinating, but they still felt the need to make it up.

I'll forgive Argo for adding a dramatic chase scene at the end that never happened.

No one should believe anything Oliver Stone claims is truth. Just treat everything he has ever done as pure fiction, including his recent documentaries.

Someone said that Stone dug into the deep well of JFK conspiracy theories, and decided to base his movie on the least plausible of them.

Braveheart, Lawrence of Arabia and Quiz Show all had some elements of truth in them. The real Lawrence of Arabia hated the notoriety, and secretly enlisted as a private in the RAF years later under a fake name.

[Bluenorthwest]

153. JFK is about Garrison, not about JFK. The film portrays Garrison very accurately.

To assume a director agrees with his lead character would mean the maker of Harvey saw invisible rabbits.

[tabasco]

67. 300

Made the Spartans a bunch of blue-eyed freedom fighters and the Persians monstrous, evil Ay-rabs or something. LOL.


Spartans were so warlike primarily due to the massive number of slaves in their city-state.

[a la izquierda]

68. Viva Zapata

Tragically inaccurate, thanks to the Red Scare.

[Dash87]

70. I'm surprised "We Were Soldiers" wasn't on the list. They outright made an American victory up.

The battle scene at the end where the Americans massacre the NVA troops never happened, and it was totally implausible and ridiculous.

[Katashi_itto]

75. War of the Worlds. Very inaccurate. The aliens took over congress.

[Waiting For Everyman]

77. To put JFK on that list is idiotic.

Just because a thing isn't proven in court, doesn't mean that it is any less a fact. Quite a few facts are not proven in court. Or did the judiciary somehow become infalliable lately?

At the same time, the list somehow managed to overlook "Marie Antoinette".

[YOHABLO]

79. If you want the facts go to the library and read a book .. otherwise it's just entertainment...>>

kind of like mainstream ''news''.

[HiPointDem]

85. this list is historically inaccurate.

[Spider Jerusalem]

88. "Birth of a Nation" should be on that list.

And "JFK" belongs somewhat higher than 13.

[Art_from_Ark]

89. The Last Samurai

Lots of inaccuracies in that one, starting with "Yoshino Province" which did not exist at the time that movie was supposed to take place.

[MichaelMcGuire]

95. What spoiled it for me, was the Samurai had been training all their lives

just for Mr Cruise to became a natural Samurai in one week :s

[Art_from_Ark]

98. He mastered Japanese calligraphy pretty fast, too

And to think there are actually calligraphy schools here in Japan where students spend years trying to reach the same level of excellence that Mr. Cruise achieved during his very brief samurai period

[MichaelMcGuire]

99. Aye hes a natural lol

[SQUEE]

164. You are not taking his Uber high Thetan levels in to account

Xenu seems to favour thespians ...or something

[Buns_of_Fire]

90. Ghostbusters.

The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man did NOT approach 55 Central Park West from the south. He actually attacked from 66th Street, going crosstown.

Other than that, though, I've been told the film is pretty accurate.

[davidpdx]

125. LOL

That and trying to make Annie Potts look hot. Total fail!

[Mothdust]

91. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!

FIDDLE DEE DEE ! Films are for entertainment, so I'll just take Mammy, go home to Tara, and think about it tomorrow! : )

[MichaelMcGuire]

94. What I find interesting about Braveheart is

not that its mostly inaccurate, what I find interesting is its born from the image of what other people view Scots. A wild 'noble savage' uncivilized but peaceful and pure of heart. In historical film/film we are either face painted savages, a militarized culture or all have social issues. The militarization of the image of some cultures would be a very interesting topic while others are not. Anyway I digress, for what it was i.e. a piece if entertainment I enjoyed the movie as I did many of the others on the list. Shame there is a need to point out that popular cinema is not historically accurate, nor need to be. Artist licence and all that.

[JNelson6563]

96. Wrong. #1 Reefer Madness

[no_hypocrisy]

97. The Sound Of Music

1. The Von Trapps geographically could not have crossed over the mountains from Austria to Switzerland without going through Nazi Germany.

2. The Von Trapp family did not walk their way to freedom. They bought a train ticket and then a boat ticket and came to NYC. Nobody stopped them. The Nazis weren't on their tail.

3. Maria married Captain Von Trapp not because she fell in love with him and he left the Baroness for her. The Captain just made her a matter-of-fact marriage offer, she said said had to ask her Bishop. The Bishop said go ahead. When the Captain asked her for what the Bishop said, Maria broke down crying, "He said I have to m-m-m-marry you!"

4. The family left Austria not because the Captain was ordered to Bremerhaven, to return to service on behalf of The Third Reich. The Captain and Maria didn't like the nazified Austrian government turning their children into Hitler Youth in their school rooms.

[KamaAina]

162. Austria actually does border Switzerland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria

Austria (i/ˈɔːstriə/ or /ˈɒstriə/; German: Österreich [ˈøːstɐˌʁaɪç] ( listen)), officially the Republic of Austria (German: Republik Österreich (help·info)), is a federal republic and a landlocked country of roughly 8.47 million people in Central Europe. It is bordered by the Czech Republic and Germany to the north, Hungary and Slovakia to the east, Slovenia and Italy to the south, and Switzerland and Liechtenstein to the west.

[no_hypocrisy]

172. Point taken.

I just figured the Von Trapps were in Salzburg and Germany is less than 100 miles away.

[Buzz Clik]

101. Ridiculous article. Pop culture crap. I was expecting more.

[SoCalDem]

102. It's called "dramatic license"

The problem, is that too many schools actually show films like these in HISTORY classes, and too many people are reluctant to research credible sources, and accept "movies about" as fact..

Movies have always embellished and ignored truth, in favor of making a "better movie".

As we become more and more visual, and less interested in facts, it gets more dangerous to our safety ..

[CanonRay]

105. How about "They Died With Their Boots On"

Supposedly Custer's Last Stand, but not even close. Still, gotta love Olivia DeHaviland. Most beautiful woman ever, IMHO.

[gulliver]

107. The criticism of Man On the Moon isn't that good.

I didn't think they gave too much weight to the idea that Andy Kaufman is still alive. They tipped their glass to the idea. I don't know how you get a more accurate rendition of Andy Kaufman than Man on the Moon. The movie itself is kind of Kaufman-esque. It truly messes with you, which is exactly what Andy Kaufman was like. It is definitely not a movie to miss. Jim Carrey's brilliant performance alone is worth the time.

[Tikki]

111. What is really becoming noticeable is any movie whose plot revolves around not..

getting or making a phone call in time because of not being able to get to a phone, hence, someone dies.

I did see a movie (wish I could remember the title) from the early 50's where a detective
had jerry-rigged up an answering machine out of a small reel- to- reel recorder and a trip wire.

Also, movies where people get lost in their car...I realize not everyone can afford or has a built-in navigator or a Garman like device...but an awful lot do, or have a navigator in the wireless device.

It's not that I dislike movies with outdated electronics..I, actually, find many of these movies nostalgic..but sometimes so obvious.

Tikki

[GreenStormCloud]

119. In "The Fugitive" the police take something like 15 seconds to trace a call.

The fugitive doctor hangs up at 14 seconds. At the time of the movie, caller ID had already been in use for several years.

[marshall]

114. And none of them touted as documentaries

I'd like to see a similar list drawn from movies that actually purport to be historically accurate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

127. the Patriot with Mel Gibson was pretty awful

[Xithras]

149. Any historical movie touched by Mel Gibson is pretty awful.

Braveheart, Pocahontas, Apocalypto, Passion of the Christ, The Patriot...all are pretty awful historically.

We Were Soldiers was a bit more accurate than the rest, but even it got the Hollywood treatment.

In fact, the only "historical" film I could find of Gibsons that was accurate to any real degree was his remake of The Bounty back in the early 80's.

I can't wait to see how his upcoming movie about the Vikings will turn out

[davidpdx]

128. The only ones I've seen are

Man On The Moon
The Social Network
Erin Brockovich
Evita

In terms of pure entertainment Erin Brockovich was the only one that was good.

[es466]

130. Very surprised that "The Patriot" was not included on that list

Remember the scene where the British soldiers march on the Mel Gibson character's house?

Tavington: All slaves who serve in the king's army will be granted their freedom!
Field Hand: We're not slaves, sir! We're free!!!

Yeah, right.

[stevebreeze]

131. One that buggede the hell out of me was "Midway" with Charleston Heston

At the end of the movie he singlehandedly sinks a Japaneses aircraft carrier that in actuality escaped unharmed.

[SQUEE]

169. altough Midway is chock full of errors..

This isn't one, the Hiryu most definitely was attacked on the same day (not a day and a half later as shown) as her sister ship the Soryu, along with the Kaga and Akagi and rendered combat ineffective. She was scuttled early the next day by torpedoes from two Japanese destroyers.
As for the other errors...I still love seeing all the Luftwaffe planes and Spitfires in the gun camera footage, and Moses Ben Hur's fatal landing is 2 anachronistic plane crashes, one a F9F Panther... a jet engined fighter.

[Gravitycollapse]

132. Loose Change.

Truly a work of fiction .

[NBachers]

136. How about Giant Gila Monster?

[Fumesucker]

138. The History of the World, Part I?

[bluedigger]

145. "Caveman" with Ringo Starr

Is Atouk (Starr) really going to ditch Lana (Barbara Bach) for Tala (Shelly Long) once he becomes the tribe's leader? I don't think so. Although it is true that "shit" is the same word we've used for "shit" for millenia.

[unblock]

151. erin brockovich? because hollywood played up the boobs?

that's proof that is was one of THE MOST HISTORICALLY INACCURATE MOVIES OF ALL TIME???

if that's the only thing the movie got wrong, well, sure, shame on hollywood for getting injecting pointless sexism and getting that one thing wrong, but come on, any movie that only gets ONE thing wrong is likely among hollywood's most historically ACCURATE movies of all time.

[demwing]

156. My Top Ten list

10. Endless Summer (I couldn't believe the damn thing ended. I was like, wait...what?)
09. 1 Million Years BC (I've heard Raquel Welch was smoking in that movie. Cigarettes? 1 million years ago? Bah!)
08. Jesus Christ, Superstar (I'm pretty sure Jesus was from Israel, so why is he singing in English?)
07. Hamlet (Where were the guns? Where were the GUNS!!!???)
06. 2001: A Space Odyssey (A past movie about a future that is now in the past? How is that not anachronistic?)
05. Lost Boys (Turns out Santa Clara isn't the murder capital of the world. Juarez is, even without the vampires.)
04. Masters of the Universe (I've SEEN the cartoon. Skeletor's voice is, sadly, inaccurate...)
03. Cosmos (Need I say more?)
02. Inglorious Basterds (C'mon, everyone knows Hitler died in Argentina in 1971)
01. Lord of the Rings (Let me just say what everyone is avoiding - This story never happened. Sorry)

[Rex]

158. History of the World Part I?

nt.

[cascadiance]

165. "Fellowship of the Ring" should have gotten adapted screenplay Oscar over "A Beautiful Mind"...

Largely due to its distorting of history documented in representing Sylvia Nasser's book (who went to my high school BTW)...

I thought by comparison that "Fellowship of the Ring" was a great first part of a very difficult adaptation of Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" saga.

Both films were excellent that year, but the twisting of reality should have kept "A Beautiful Mind" from getting the Oscar then in that category. Much like probably "Zero Dark Thirty" why didn't get as rewarded with as much notoriety for Katherine Bigelow as her earlier film "The Hurt Locker" did.

[zipplewrath]

167. You're all wrong

The Glen Miller Story.

It's hard to list anything that it got right. His name, his wife's name, the songs he wrote, that's about it. Everything else was pretty much dead on fiction, including much of the info around his death.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

168. I wonder which of the many films about the Earps and the Clantons is considered the most accurate?

[MinM]

170. DC 9/11: Time of Crisis

Propaganda designed to portray Dubya as a strong and decisive leader during 9/11.

[StevieM]

175. As much as I love Cassablanca the movie has one HUGE historical error

Charles de Gaulle having supposedly signed the letters of transit.

[Incitatus]

176. Inglorious Basterds didn't make the list? nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

178. "Moneyball"

I love the film, but there are so many things wrong, like the fact Chad Bradford already played for the A's before 2002, Carlos Pena was not an All Star when he was traded to Detroit, and Scott Hatteberg was never benched by Art Howe in favor of him.

[CitizenLeft]

179. they should've included "Elizabeth" to that list too

Lots of things in that made my eyeballs cross. I thought it was even worse than "Golden Age." Like Walsingham murdering Marie de Guise. Really? Good grief.

Liked Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth, though. Second only to Glenda Jackson, of course.

[n2doc]

185. No "Birth of a Nation"? n/t