Done by Yahoo so really nothing older than 25 years, but a fun list definitely not to be taken too seriously. http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/10mosthistoricallyinaccurate.html We all accept that movies stretch the truth in the interest of building drama. The following ten flicks, however, treat the truth like it was Silly Putty -- pulling and twisting it until it's unrecognizable. 10. 10,000 B.C. Director Roland Emmerich is usually a stickler for realism (see: sending a computer virus via Macintosh to aliens in Independence Day). So we hate to inform him that woolly mammoths were not, in fact, used to build pyramids. Heck, woolly mammoths weren't even found in the desert. They wouldn't need to be woolly if that were the case. And there weren't any pyramids in Egypt until 2,500 B.C or so. 9. Gladiator Emperor Commodus was not the sniveling sister-obsessed creep portrayed in the movie. A violent alcoholic, sure, but not so whiny. He ruled ably for over a decade rather than ineptly for a couple months. He also didn't kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, who actually died of chickenpox. And instead of being killed in the gladiatorial arena, he was murdered in his bathtub. 8. 300 Though this paean to ancient moral codes and modern physical training is based on the real Battle of Thermopylae, the film takes many stylistic liberties. The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject. The Spartan council was made up of men over the age of 60, with no one as young as Theron (played by 37-year-old Dominic West). And the warriors of Sparta went into battle wearing bronze armor, not just leather Speedos. 7. The Last Samurai The Japanese in the late 19th century did hire foreign advisers to modernize their army, but they were mostly French, not American. Ken Watanabe's character was based on the real Saigo Takamori who committed ritual suicide, or "seppuku," in defeat rather than in a volley of Gatling gun fire. Also, it's doubtful that a 40-something alcoholic Civil War vet, even one with great hair, would master the chopsticks much less the samurai sword. 6. Apocalypto This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migraines. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from the infected Spanish pigs. 5. Memoirs of a Geisha The geisha coming-of-age, called "mizuage," was really more of a makeover, where she changed her hairstyle and clothes. It didn't involve her getting... intimate with a client. In the climactic scene where Sayuri wows Gion patrons with her dancing prowess, her routine - which involves some platform shoes, fake snow, and a strobe light - seems more like a Studio 54 drag show than anything in pre-war Kyoto. 4. Braveheart Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died. 3. Elizabeth: The Golden Age In 1585, when the movie takes place, Queen Elizabeth was 52 years old - Cate Blanchett was 36 when she shot the film - and was not being courted by suitors like Ivan the Terrible (who was dead by then). And though the movie has her rallying the troops at Tilbury astride a white steed in full armor with a sword, in fact she rode side saddle, carrying a baton. She was more of a regal majorette than Joan of Arc. 2. The Patriot Revolutionary War figure Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion was the basis for Mel Gibson's character, but he wasn't the forward-thinking family man they show in the flick. He was a slave owner who didn't get married (to his cousin) until after the war was over. Historians also say that he actively persecuted and murdered native Cherokees. Plus, the thrilling Battle of Guilford Court House where he vanquishes his British nemesis? In reality, the Americans lost that one. 1. 2001: A Space Odyssey According to this film, in year 2001 we would have had manned voyages to Jupiter, a battle of wits with a sentient computer, and a quantum leap in human evolution. Instead we got the Mir Space Station falling from the sky, Windows XP, and Freddy Got Fingered. Apparently the lesson here is that sometimes it's better when the movies get the facts all wrong. ...and I own 7 of these lol.
I own 4. And 3 are related to Mel Gibson. heh. But that list could go on foreve. just looking at my wall, pretty much every War movie is probably inaccurate. A lot are based of factual events but the events themsleves are embellished.
The whole list is just meant to be funny, but 2001 being on there was absolutely meant to be a joke. They could've put 1984 just as easily, but 2001 is a bit more high profile. The internet list phenom is quite interesting IMO just for general message board reaction alone. I shutter to think if this were presented on IMDB. My favorite.
I'm not sure if 300 was really trying to be fact based. More of a fable that was told by a good story teller with a lot of liberties thrown in for effect. The braveheart stuff is just embarrassing though...
The rest I grant you, this one on the other hand I don't. The thing about 300 is that it is being told as a story by Dilios (who I'm told didn't fight at Platea since he killed himself after returning to Sparta) to the other Spartans hence all the exaggeration. Although the leater speedos is certainly a point to concede. A better film made on the subject would have been The 300 Spartans http://imdb.com/title/tt0055719/
Daddy would you like some sasuage? I tend to think Freddy Got Fingered was one of the funnest stupid comedies... you just can't help but laugh. Hell even my girlfriend loves the movie.
Last Samurai was great. (too bad I despise Tom Cruise ) Oh, and doesn't Pearl Harbor count as a historically inaccurate movie?
yeah I wouldn't put 300 on there only because the movie was extremely accurate...to the Graphic novel it's based on.
"4. Braveheart Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died." Ok, the kilt thing may be inexplicable, but at the very beginning of the movie William Wallace is narrating and says something like "history books are written by those who kill heroes". Ironic they would say that history books prove this movie to be inaccurate.
I think the best point is: How fricking boring would any of these movies be, if they were historically correct? My opinion? Extremely.
No real surprises, but I have to quibble with 300 and Braveheart, neither of which are intended to be historical fiction. They are instead tellings of the legends inspired by these events, and so should be considered similar to Troy. As for The Patriot, well, that character was based on the Swamp Fox, but it wasn't supposed to be him, probably for the very reasons they point out. That brings us down to misrepresenting one battle (though I suspect there was more left out for brevity).
I think that including 300 is perfectly fine since it had a huge controversy over its presentation of historical accurateness. Look at the outrage the outrage in the Iran over the Persian portrayal. I think the fact that its based on graphic novel is actually lost on most of the public, and they couldn't see past the historical setting. Was it meant to be accurate? But thats means little to most I guess. Their intentions don't really matter as much as their receptions by the audiences that viewed them. People foolingly base their knowledge of Scotland in that period off of Braveheart.
