Least historically accurate "historical" movie | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Least historically accurate "historical" movie

Casino

Pretty accurate. The one scene I had always assumed was BS was Rothstein's TV show. Turns out the real Rothstein actually had a TV show where he complained about the Nevada gaming commission. Those 3 really were total idiots. The quote by Pesci's character, "in the end, we ****ed it all up" sums up both the movie and the 3 real life characters.
 
Kingdom of Heaven - One of my favorite swords and sandals movies from 10 years ago, but it has some issues. The Angus McFadyn character Guy (the guy who played Robert the Bruce in Braveheart) and Eva Green's characters actually loved each other very much and remained committed to each other their entire lives. Balian (Bloom) and Guy were actually allied with rival factions and kept an on again, off again pissing match going until Balian died. Balian was not a blacksmith. His father was actually a powerful noble from the holy lands, and Balian inherited his lands and title. Reynald (Brendan Gleeson) was really nuts, but he was more the leader to Guy than Guy's sidekick.

It was strange that they would make a movie out of an episode of history that was so messy, and of which the historical record is so spotty. The movie tries to express multiple metaphors about religious fanaticism and the complexity of right and wrong, and uses the fall of Jeruselum in the 12th century as the setting for a really interesting story.

I give this movie a pass on the historical problems because it was so ambitious and well done as a film, and the creative choices make a lot more sense than they did with a movie like Elizabeth or The Last Samurai where the reality was so fascinating it should have just been left alone.
 
JFK is based largely on Jim Garrison's NON fiction book "On the trail of the assassins" If you believe Jim Garrison then the movie is mostly accurate and outstanding.

BTW "On the trail of the assassins" is a fabulous book. A real life Dan Brown novel. Good luck finding it in bookstores.
 
Going to resuscitate this thread. King Arthur (2004 Clive Owens version) is making the rounds on cable. One way to avoid getting into trouble with the historical record is to pick periods of history where there is almost no historical record to get in trouble with, which is what this movie does. I like this movie a lot and it was a box office success.

English history effectively stops from the end of Roman occupation until the late 9th century. Literacy dropped to essentially a few hundred monks at monastaries, and the language was changing so much over this period that it makes tracking a historical record even more difficult. Making Arthur Roman is as reasonable as any other theory about the historical basis for King Arthur. Society was devolving into fiefdoms that were often no more than a few miles across, and feudalism would develop based on these Germanic warlords or Roman nobles offering protection to the local peasantry in return for food and their fealty.

The Saxons were not mindless barbarians, but more like refugees fleeing some fairly awful tribes coming in behind them out of eastern Europe. The climactic Battle of Badon was actually fought, but historical records are not even clear on who the two sides were or why they fought. It is likely that it was a battle between Celtic Britons (Owens side) and Saxons (Stellan Skarsgard's side), but why the battle occurred is not clear. It also may have not been much more than a skirmish between 500 to 1,000 men on each side.
 
Last edited:
nelsonmuntz said:
Going to resuscitate this thread. King Arthur (2004 Clive Owens version) is making the rounds on cable. One way to avoid getting into trouble with the historical record is to pick periods of history where there is almost no historical record to get in trouble with, which is what this movie does. I like this movie a lot and it was a box office success.

English history effectively stops from the end of Roman occupation until the late 9th century. Literacy dropped to essentially a few hundred monks at monastaries, and the language was changing so much over this period that it makes tracking a historical record even more difficult. Making Arthur Roman is as reasonable as any other theory about the historical basis for King Arthur. Society was devolving into fiefdoms that were often no more than a few miles across, and feudalism would develop based on these Germanic warlords or Roman nobles offering protection to the local peasantry in return for food and their fealty.

The Saxons were not mindless barbarians, but more like refugees fleeing some fairly awful tribes coming in behind them out of eastern Europe. The climactic Battle of Badon was actually fought, but historical records are not even clear on who the two sides were or why they fought. It is likely that it was a battle between Celtic Britons (Owens side) and Saxons (Stellan Skarsgard's side), but why the battle occurred is not clear. It also may have not been much more than a skirmish between 500 to 1,000 men on each side.
Expand ...


The King Arthur from Transformers might have been as accurate.
 
.-.
Watching Patton this morning. This movie is very accurate historically as far as movies go. A few of his writings or speeches were shifted to dialogue or given in different places than in real life, but all of that was fair artistic license. The one quibble I have is that the movie is a little rough on Montgomery, who was a good general in real life and almost as crazy and reckless as Patton.

One thing that sticks out is that the jeeps drive like lunatics throughout the movie. I assume this was simple forshadowing of how Patton would eventually die, but maybe they did drive like that.
 
By many accounts I've read, the real Patton had kind of a Elmer Fudd-like voice. That's not George C. Scott. Thus, not-factual.

The real Patton starts speaking about 1:18 into this vid:
 
Sorkin Movies:

The Social Network - Pretty accurate. As is normal with Sorkin, there was some artistic license (Winklevosses and Saverin were never in the same deposition, for example), but a lot of the details, like Zuckerberg writing Facesmash while drunk and blogging was accurate. I suspect people's opinion on Sean Parker is entirely based on perspective, so I don't know that there is a factual answer on that. Also, Zuckerberg got thumped in both lawsuits, and the movie shows that he probably deserved it.

Steve Jobs - I read the book. The movie uses this completely artificial construct of 3 product debuts to have a ton of dialogue and action, so the details are way off. For example, by the third act, Wozniak had been gone from Apple for a decade, yet Jobs tells Wozniak that he can keep his job. Jobs' friends claimed the movie was inaccurate and overly negative. That said, in an interview, Wozniak said that the movie is an accurate portrayal of his relationship with Jobs, as did most of the anti-Jobs people. Given that Lisa Brennan Jobs recently came out with a book that was absolutely brutal on her father, it appears that Sorkin may have even pulled some punches when it came to that relationships.

Charlie Wilson's War - Pretty accurate. The complaints about the movie were primary that other people did not get more credit for Afghanistan. The movie was about Charlie Wilson. People need to chill.

Moneyball - this movie gets some weird facts wrong. For example, a lot of the drama revolves around Scott Hatteberg and whether Howe would play him or not. Hatteberg had a solid season and played a lot. I don't think there was really that much drama about playing him. Some of the best players, like Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez, don't even make an appearance.
 
Last edited:
nelsonmuntz said:
People complain about Braveheart, but that is a documentary compared to Elizabeth.
Expand ...

Braveheart had some hilarious bloopers.......

After the English cavalry charges at Mel and his boys holding up big wooden sticks, you can see a pickup truck in the background.

Another is when Mel and his boys are all lined up and ready to charge, and Mel is whipping up his boys into a frenzy, lots of sword waving and yelling, way in the back row you can see some of Mel's boys wearing sunglasses.
 
I will say one film I saw a couple of years ago that I thought in some respects nailed the historical accuracy of the event, but also took some liberties with what really happened to shorten the film, was Randall Wallace's "When We Were Soldiers", which is about the Ia Drang battles in 1965 Vietnam between thousands of North Vietnamese PAVN regulars and the US Army Air Mobile 7th Cavalry Regiment. Also thought Mel Gibson's portrayal of Col. Hal Moore had way too much of a John Wayne flavor to it. I also thought the casting of the film could have been better. If anyone is interested in researching this you can start with Joe Galloway's book, "When We Were Soldiers And Young".

A couple of footnotes about two of the heros of the Ia Drang, Thomas Metsker and Jack Geoghegan who were both killed in the battle. Geoghegan is buried at St Mary's Cemetery in Bethel CT. Metsker's daughter, Karen married Joe Galloway many years later in 1998.
 
Last edited:
.-.
Star Wars is a historic epic that happened long ago in galaxy far away. But from what I can gather it's accurate. I haven't heard of anyone who disputes it.
 
Palatine said:
Star Wars is a historic epic that happened long ago in galaxy far away. But from what I can gather it's accurate. I haven't heard of anyone who disputes it.
Expand ...
Who are you talking to? Science fiction? Dune detroys Star Wars too.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The Winklevi and Arendra got a $65 million settlement. I wouldn't call that getting eaten alive.

Saverin is the only sympathetic character in the whole movie. Everyone else comes off like a jerk.
Expand ...

Agreed about Saverin, and the more I read about the guy the more I like him.

The payment to the Winklevii amounted to a nuisance payment from Zuckerberg's perspective, and when they tried to go back and invalidate it they were laughed out of court. Then they tried to stiff their lawyers.
 
Well I don’t consider myself a historian but I believe they may have taken some liberties in Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.
 
Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure included quite a few historical figures, they might've taken a few liberties with that film as well.
 
.-.
Waquoit said:
Do you remember what he ended up with?
Expand ...

It was estimated at over a billion dollars worth of stock at the time of the settlement, although it was never disclosed.

The Saverin case was pretty open and shut. I never read the book, but I imagine there must have been more to the deal where Zuckerberg pushed Saverin out than the movie portrayed, because I can't imagine Thiel or Sequoia going along with the deal that was presented in the movie. The deal that was in the movie was so obviously illegal that I can't even imagine a respectable law firm putting their name on it.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
It was estimated at over a billion dollars worth of stock at the time of the settlement, although it was never disclosed.

The Saverin case was pretty open and shut. I never read the book, but I imagine there must have been more to the deal where Zuckerberg pushed Saverin out than the movie portrayed, because I can't imagine Thiel or Sequoia going along with the deal that was presented in the movie. The deal that was in the movie was so obviously illegal that I can't even imagine a respectable law firm putting their name on it.
Expand ...

It's not that far off . . .

 
Excalibur said:
It's not that far off . . .
Expand ...

That article is quite a hit piece by someone close to Zuckerberg, if not Zuckerberg himself.

The argument that Saverin was blocking the reincorporation is undermined by the fact that Saverin actually signed an agreement to re-incorporate in Delaware. In fact, Saverin went along with everything reasonable, right up to the point where Zuckerberg issued himself, Moskowitz and Parker a bunch of new shares and diluted Saverin down to single digits.

I was wrong. The facts of Zuckerberg's theft of Facebook were just as clumsy as portrayed in the movie.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I was wrong. The facts of Zuckerberg's theft of Facebook were just as clumsy as portrayed in the movie.
Expand ...

That was my point. Leaving aside the argument over whether Saverin was not cooperating, the transaction was just as clumsy as it was in the movie, and Zuckerberg knew it. This is his actual email --

"Eduardo is refusing to co-operate at all…We basically now need to sign over our intellectual property to a new company and just take the lawsuit…I'm just going to cut him out and then settle with him. And he'll get something I'm sure, but he deserves something…He has to sign stuff for investments and he's lagging and I can't take the lag."
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The Last Samurai was absurd too, starting with the fact that the Samurai were pretty awful and perpetuated a brutal feudal system that the vast majority of Japanese hated. Furthermore, the fat bad guy in the movie was an amalgamation of two real life Japanese nobles who were the primary reasons Japan modernized so quickly and was able to hold off Western domination. Both of them, Omura and Okubo, are considered heroes in Japan.
Expand ...

The Last Samurai popped up in my list in Netflix recently and I will often put a movie on in the background if I am working late so I rewatched it. It is worse than I remembered.

This movie has so many issues with historical accuracy, in addition to Noble Savage/White Savior plot problems that I am surprised that A) Ken Watanabe and really any of the Japanese cast went along with it, and B) that it is still promoted on Netflix. A lot of the more problematic content from the 2000's (i.e. Entourage) is still carried on the streaming services, but you have to know where to look.

One example of the Noble Savage/White Savior problem is that the plan for the final battle is developed by Tom Cruise's character Algren. Katsumoto (Watanabe) was just going to charge into the enemy, to the extent he had any plan at all. While some of the samurai tactics, such as bonzai charges, only worked against other samurai, they were not idiots. Another way the movie makes the samurai stupider than they were in real life is that in the Satsuma Rebellion, the samurai actually did use modern weapons. The samurai had been using modern weapons since the 16th century.

In real life, the samurai were clearly the villains in the Satsuma Rebellion, and while the movie goes through logic gymnastics to come up with a justification for a selfish rebellion by Katsumoto and Algren, none of the dialogue between Katsumoto and the Emperor makes any sense if you listen to it. At best, Katsumoto is manipulating the Emperor into doing something stupid. From a historical perspective, the written record indicates that Emperor Meiji felt exactly the opposite of what he said in the movie. This ahistorical problems with the movie create plot problems. Not only does the rationale for the rebellion not make any sense, but none of the characters' motivations make any sense either. The actual Satsuma Rebellion involved the last traditional samurai launching a pointless, bloody war against their own countrymen at a time when Japan was facing a real risk of being colonized. The samurai were mad because they were losing their preferred place in Japanese society. There was nothing noble about it. And no matter how visually appealing the movie is or how compelling the love story is or how good the acting is, the character motivations are always unclear because there is no way to make Katsumoto the good guy beyond the movie just telling us he is the good guy. He is actually the villain.

The Tom Cruise character is loosely based on a Frenchman that fought on the side of the last Shogun early in the Meiji Restoration. One part of the movie that apparently was accurate was the final charge where all of Katsumoto's soldiers get slaughtered.

One of the few positives of this movie is Tony Goldwyn, who is as good at playing a as any actor in the last 30 years.
 
Since @ZooCougar complained about it, I will add Napoleon to this thread.

There was a fair amount of artistic license taken with the wars and battles, and I think the producers should "Full Epic" mode and made a 3.5 hour movie to really tell the story, because key relationships like the Russian Czar and Talleyrand get reduced to almost nothing. My biggest problem with the movie is his relationship with Josephine, which felt underdeveloped in the movie. We never really understand why he does much of anything other than divorcing Josephine, which apparently was the result of his mother making him (which is apparently at least partially true).

Ridley Scott encapsulated his thoughts on historical accuracy with this quote: When I have issues with historians, I ask: 'Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the **** up then.'"
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
Since @ZooCougar complained about it, I will add Napoleon to this thread.

There was a fair amount of artistic license taken with the wars and battles, and I think the producers should "Full Epic" mode and made a 3.5 hour movie to really tell the story, because key relationships like the Russian Czar and Talleyrand get reduced to almost nothing. My biggest problem with the movie is his relationship with Josephine, which felt underdeveloped in the movie. We never really understand why he does much of anything other than divorcing Josephine, which apparently was the result of his mother making him (which is apparently at least partially true).

Ridley Scott encapsulated his thoughts on historical accuracy with this quote: When I have issues with historians, I ask: 'Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the **** up then.'"
Expand ...

Ridley sounds like the orange guy there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,628
Messages
4,530,744
Members
10,404
Latest member
RussellHall


Top Bottom