Comments on: 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies

By: John

John — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 13:59:23 +0000

In reply to DEvonRoy. "Braveheart never claims to be “historically accurate,”" It did actually. But backed out at the right moment. (True story) : )

By: Isabela

Isabela — Tue, 22 May 2012 22:15:54 +0000

thanks for the review!

By: tsb049

tsb049 — Thu, 17 May 2012 03:21:40 +0000

What about Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That deserves to be on this list.

By: Daniel Wilson

Daniel Wilson — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:06:02 +0000

*Gay seal* GAAAAAAAAAY!!!

By: James May

James May — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:59:10 +0000

"2001: A space Odyssey" was made in 1968 and set in the future. What has this to do with history. accurate or inaccurate. It just happened to be set in a future whose date has passed. In that case maybe you should include "1984."

By: Seany

Seany — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 03:54:51 +0000

How about Saving Private Ryan? Or as I call it “How The Americans won WW2 single handed”. Not a mention of allied troops.

By: 420BAND

420BAND — Tue, 17 May 2011 21:43:53 +0000

In reply to Rodney.

“The Flying Car”!
where is it?

all we have is video chat and Nintendo 3-ds

what a jip!

By: Rodney

Rodney — Tue, 17 May 2011 20:43:14 +0000

In reply to Tims4cfe.

Ok, first off you need to watch a Mel Gibson movie if you think he has done the same movie “over and over again” Honestly. With close to 60 credits to the man’s name, its clear that he doesn’t play the same character.

There are similarities in plot with Patriot and Braveheart, however his character is totally different in each. None of which are anything like Riggs. That made no sense at all.

And as far as your criticism of Titanic. I would like to know what story you might apply to “the ship sinks”. It’s the only historical part of that movie. Fabricating a group of characters to sympathize with is the only way to give heart to that story. You sarcastically suggest that a lovestory needed the Titanic, but in reality a story about the Titanic wouldn’t have been compelling without the lovestory.

These movies have a sense of familiarity to them because of the shred of history they are clinging to, but its the fiction that makes it interesting.

Its no worse a violation to history to make an inaccurate movie than it is to tell fiction about a future that will no doubt be offended when it comes to pass differently too.

I want my silver jumpsuit fashions, jetpacks and flying cars that the year 2000 was supposed to bring.

By: Tims4cfe

Tims4cfe — Tue, 17 May 2011 12:44:00 +0000

‘Artistic license’ is a cop-out. If movie makers don’t want to be constrained by reality, they shouldn’t make movies about real people and real events. What I wrote a script that suggested the 1997 version of Titanic originated with an idea proposed by Brittany Spears and that James Cameron had help from George W. Bush in writing the script? That’s just artistic license, isn’t it? Would any of these film makers want their own life story treated the way they treat historical figures? Of course not. If they can’t deal with the truth, they should stick to fictional stories — of course, a movie about a romance on a passenger ship wouldn’t sell without the cachet of the name Titanic. Come to think of it, if you can’t find enough compelling drama in the true stories that took place on Titanic, you aren’t much of a story teller. I don’t mean to pick on Camerson … Lord knows Mel Gibson has been making the same movie over and over again. Don’t the characters in Apocalypto, The Patriot and Braveheart all have many of the same characteristics as his Riggs character in the Lethal Weapon movies?

By: rfox

rfox — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 06:15:32 +0000

Thanks dude for helping me with my homework

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:16:03 +0000

Having 300 on the list really pisses me off.

First off- it is NOT based on, “the real Battle of Thermopylae” it is based on the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller. It’s the first line in the description of the movie on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/300_movie

Second- If they were trying to be historically accurate, they probably wouldn’t have fictional creatures in it. The guy with blades for arms, the giant messed up monster that was chained, etc.

Once again, it’s based on a “fictional comic”. The actual history behind it just made for a basis, but was not intended for Frank Miller’s version of the story. If he wanted to be accurate, he probably wouldn’t have mentioned that it was “fictional”.

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:16:40 +0000

To be fair, The Patriot got some of the costumng close and gives some idea of the kind of fighting that went on in the Carolinas during the Revolution. But there is much more that is seriously wrong with it than there is right. The gigantic Hollywood sized cannon in the climactic battle scene is a good starting point; they are about 8 to 10 times the size of the ones used at Guilford Courthouse or Cowpens, and the ruined mansion looks like a leftover set from Gone With the Wind. In the real American Revolution there wasn’t a French soldier south of Virginia after they blew the attempt to retake Savannah.
What really makes this one so flagrant is that there were historians from the Smithsonian and dozens of knowledgeable reenactors working on the film and their advice was completely ignored.