most historically incorrect movie!

The thought has occured to me that maybe historical movies aren't supposed to be accurate. History plays weren't. But they (history plays) are very entertaining nonetheless. Don't believe anything that isn't in prose, I always say. And only believe half of that. :)
 
well yeah......but........is kind of scary when people think adn believe in the hollywood pictures adn ideas. and lets think about it...........wasnt saving private ryan and enemy at the gates any good? and it was somewaht accurate.
 
Someone mentioned gladiator, it was 100% fiction, but extremely stupid anyway.

There is difference between movies that are made to show historical events and movies that tells a story in a historical setting, Robin Hood and the first knight for example is only fiction

A stupid historical movie is Genghis Khan with Omar Sharif (I´m not very sure that Genghis captured half the world and China with an army of 20 people).
 
Disney's "Pearl Harbor" was PC, offensive, and a big crock. It whitewashed everything Japan had done and almost blamed the U.S. for the war.
 
Originally posted by HotDog Fish
Almost any American made historical movie, they're complete farces in my opnion, complete and utter disregard for hisotrical accuracy, all they care is about action

ummmm, hotdog fish movies are made for entertainment if you want historical accuracy go read a history book. Hollywood would not survive just writing movies that were "historically accurate"
 
I disliked the movie "Elizabeth" because of it's extravagent liberties with fact. I first saw the movie whilst studying early modern England in school and was expecting at least a quasi-historical bio-pic. Instead I got a personality pic with all other characters merely serving to enhance Elizabth's personal story e.g. Burghey as a dithering advisor and Walsingham as a 16th century 007! It's not a bad watch by itself but it is reduced to a comedy when accompianed by any knowledge of her reign.

On the same lines, what about 'I, Claudius' (both filmand book)? Claudius is represented as the unwitting hero, but history recollects him as being amongst the worst emporers.

I love I, Claudius, the book. Graves did use some poetic license within the story, but historically 90% of it stands up historically. Apparently (as noted in the preface of Claudius the God) no character is made up whcih, if true, is a marvellous acheivmant. From what I have read of Claudius he was, historically, a middle of the road emporer. On his accession, it was highly likely the republic could have been restored after the reigns of Tiberius and Caligula, but by the end of his reign the empire was more or less taken for granted. He was not spectacular but by no means was he one of the worst emporers, despite his personal failings.
 
Originally posted by lord_byron_nz
I disliked the movie "Elizabeth" because of it's extravagent liberties with fact. I first saw the movie whilst studying early modern England in school and was expecting at least a quasi-historical bio-pic. Instead I got a personality pic with all other characters merely serving to enhance Elizabth's personal story e.g. Burghey as a dithering advisor and Walsingham as a 16th century 007! It's not a bad watch by itself but it is reduced to a comedy when accompianed by any knowledge of her reign.

I disliked the movie "Elizabeth" because it was boring.
 
How about Gladiator, with Commodus dying on the arena? :hmm:
 
Originally posted by superunknown
How about Gladiator, with Commodus dying on the arena? :hmm:

There were many more errors more incorrect than that one.

However, Gladiator is still a kick-ass movie and deserved every single award it claimed. :D
 
The Patriot made me sick.

As someone mentioned earlier, the British would have NEVER done anything close to the atrocities committed.

What a lousy movie.
 
Dances with Wolves. Never saw it but Dad described it to me.
 
with the exeption of we were soldiers, all of mel gibson's historical movies.
 
Back
Top Bottom