10,000BC
Gladiator
300
The Last Samurai
Apocalypto
Memoirs of a Geisha
Braveheart
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
The Patriot
2001: A Space Odyssey
First I would take out 300 and 2001. 300 was a stylized piece and must be judged accordingly. 2001 was about the future. I never saw 10,000BC but form what I heard, it wasn’t meant to present a historical treatment of 12,000 years ago.
Agree or disagree with the list? What would you put in your top 10 anti-historical movies?
A better question would be which movies are at all historically accurate? Between willful ignorance, innocent ignorance, Whig history, and dramatic re-arrangement, it’s hard to find a film that really fits reality all that well. Apollo 13, i understand, did a pretty good job (but still had errors)I think Sink the Mismarck was accurate, but a Man for All Seasons, despite using More’s words and all, still took some liberties, I understand. The Great escape had actual prisoners from Stalag Luft III as advisors, and a lot of it’s WAY off the mark.
The list, like so many, is weighted heavily with recent releases. There are plenty of terrible history movies further back. A list from the 1960s would definitely include Cleopatra, for instance.
Actually, the argument for The Patriot is completely off base. It says that Gibson’s character is based on Francis Marion and goes on to point out how Gibson’s movie doesn’t portray Marion accurately.
Hello? “Based on” does not mean “a historical account of.” The Patriot is about a fictional person who shares some similarities with Marion, but isn’t supposed to be Marion himself. The complaint is so off-base that it boggles the mind.
I came in here to say the same thing – movies that are historically accurate would be a much shorter list than the opposite.
Although I suppose it would depend on your threshold for inaccuracy. Apollo 13 was pretty accurate, but didn’t get every last detail correct, but did forgivable things like combining several people into one character (Gene Kranz and Chris Kraft, for example). Does that take the movie completely off the list for minor transgressions?
What, Elizabeth the Golden Age wasn’t historically accurate but the first Elizabeth film was? I don’t think so. Much as I’d like The madness of king George to be on the button it really wasn’t.
Note to all Americans - don’t ever bring up U571 with a British person as they’re likely to commit violence against you.
I think there’s a difference between anachronisms and movies that get the historical facts completely wrong. One of the things about *Braveheart *that drives historians around the bend is the Battle of Stirling Bridge…where was the damn bridge?
What an odd list. Some of the films (Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Braveheart), are ostensibly about real people. Others (Gladiator, Apacolypto) are entirely fictional but take place in recognizable milieus. Still others (2001, 10,000 BC) are pure “what if” stories clearly not meant to portray actual events.
I’m pretty sure most people who saw 10,000 BC weren’t there to learn anything about history. On the other hand, I can see how people might expect more from a movie about Elizabeth I. But drama has never been a good place to look for historical accuracy. Take Macbeth: Duncan was killed in battle, not murdered in his sleep, and no near-contemporary accounts portray Macbeth as a tyrant, coward, or associate of witches.
Nor Objective: Burma, which has Errol Flynn and the Yanks winning the war in that area. The movie had to be pulled from release in the UK after a storm of protests from the British public.
Anastasia left out the part about the Russian royal family being shot to death in a basement and then set on fire, but apart from that, it was spot-on. I especially liked how realistically the relationship between Rasputin and his evil pet bat was shown.
How many of us actually knew who William Wallace was before Mel Gibson’s Braveheart was released? Given that, in the words of Julian Goodare, the Scots don’t tend to share their history with outsiders, I think the answer would not amount to very many. I’m willing to cut filmmakers a little slack. A little.
Speaking as an AngloScot can I say that Julian Goodare was talking out of his arse reference “The Scots dont tend etc.”
The Scots are very proud of their history and there are literally thousands of books,documentaries,museums and societies devoted to telling other people that history.
Apart from that Braveheart was not the nick name of William Wallace but that of Robert the Bruce.
Scots didn’t wear woad when going into battle at that time,that was a slightly thousand years out of date.