Comments on: 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies

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.

By: Dragonslayer

Dragonslayer — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:35:03 +0000

Who cares? As long as their good movies I don’t care.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 24 May 2008 07:35:17 +0000

I like the idea of this list (as well as the 2001 joke most seem to have missed) and I would agree that some movies made some clear intentional artistic license with the story to reasonably make it more enjoyable. BUT, the real point IMHO is how often the real story is more interesting than the one made up (which is IMHO most often the case for the listed movies… my favorite one to hate is Elizabeth, but I also thought it was boring). For example, the real story at the beginning of Navigator (so many that could have made the list) is that Hughes took up the plane himself, did the maneuver the other pilot said couldn’t be done, which required crashing the plane. Hughes then climbed out of the wreckage, walked over pass the pilot, and said, “That’s how I want it done.” That would have made a cool scene. And, the stuff about how he burned his clothes also made up and it hurt the story. How can we get the message to Hollywood that accuracy counts? And, how about a list of the most accurate historical movies?!?

By: Andy Winslow

Andy Winslow — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:11:33 +0000

Whoever it was at Yahoo that wrote the article, should be fired. As should the editor that OK’d the story.

To include 2001: A Space Odyssey on the list is absolutely wrong.

I hope that very few people read that article because I’d hate to think they would believe that what they were reading was FACT.

By: Steve Anderson

Steve Anderson — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:41:40 +0000

(Type your comment here. Make sure you’ve read the commenting rules before doing so)

While I agree that some on the list were inaccurate, THE most inaccurate movie of the past 300 years was omitted from that list. Oliver Stone’s “JFK” is without any doubt, without any hesitation, without any debate THE most historically inaccurate movie ever recorded on celluloid. The amount of made-up “facts” and Oliver Stone’s total ignorance or willful disregard for the mountain of evidence that points to Lee Harvey Oswald (and no one else) MUST earn him the title as the most dishonest film maker in modern history. It would a post of 5,000 words to record all of the misinformation found in JFK. To make a long story short–that movie SHOULD have been named “Dallas in Wonderland.”

By: James Dawson

James Dawson — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:02:01 +0000

Yeah, I’ll take a number and get in line: 2001: A Space Odyssey does not belong on this list. As for the others, yes, they may be inaccurate (at times, blatantly), but that doesn’t mean they’re not worth watching. As a history major, I realize how crucial history (and its interpretations) is to the outlook we have on the present. That being said, the films listed were all produced with the objective of entertaining — a goal that was largely fulfilled. If, however, I want a lesson in history, I’ll crack open a textbook.

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:26:08 +0000

I haven’t seen every movie on this list, however there are some flaws in the yahoo list, as many have pointed out. 10k BC, I haven’t seen, however just from the previews i can’t argue. Gladiator, Last Samurai, Memoirs, Elizabeth, Braveheart, and I think the Patriot as well were all actually quite accurate to the settings. Costumes, props, scenery, accents and lighting were all fairly accurate. I will give the stories the credit that has been given by others that this is historical fiction. Yahoo should really look closer at the movies it puts on this list and put out a more accurate list of the inaccurate.

By: Jesse Rosenberg

Jesse Rosenberg — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:12:45 +0000

that is just dumb to put 2001 space odyssey on that
it was a fucking future movie… not historical, of course its not gunna be accurate

By: Dustin

Dustin — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:06:08 +0000

Since this is all about accuracy, it’s worth pointing out that Yahoo is also incorrect about The Last Samurai. (Spoiler) Technically, Ken Watanabe did die of seppuku. His hand on his knife sealed the deal. Sure it was assisted seppuku, and he did have a body full gatling slugs, but at least the filmmakers, in their stretched artistic vision, gave a nod-off to the real story in history…