I’ve always been impressed by The Age of Innocence. The costumes, the mannerisms, the sets . . . Beautiful period piece.
You culd sort movies into four categories, depending on their fidelity to the historical record (events and characters) or to the period (sets, costumes, language, props), or–very rarely–to both, or–more commonly–neither. For example:
Tombstone: The costumes, guns, sets, hairstyles, and locations are spot on. The story, however, is highly fictionalized. Still, a great movie.
Gladiator: Costumes, battle tactics, recreations of Roman buildings, etc, are often laughably wrong. Also, the main character is completely fictional, the issues (ressoring the Republic?) and events are changed almost beyond recognition, and the depictions of real people–especially Commodus–are at odds with the historical accouonts of them. Still, highly entertaining at most times.
Historically speaking, it would have been the USS Essex, which sailed around the tip of South America to harass British whaling ships in the Pacific Ocean, even going so far as to commission a capture whaler as the USS Little Essex (the captain apparantly had either a weird sense of humor or a very lacking imagination). The Essex was eventually captured by the Royal Navy in Chile, but only after having caused millions of dollars in damage to the British whaling industry.
Not so much a true story as being based on a collection of true stories, Flight of the Intruder followed the plot of the book rather closely (though it changed up all of the minor characters and skipped some of the less important sorties the characters flew on), and the author, Stephen Coonts, maintains that with the exception of the last two missions in the book (and by extension, the movie, which has most of the missions play pretty close to the book) all of the missions and character plots in the story were based on actual missions and things he witnessed while serving aboard the USS Enterprise. So, in short, the overall plot is made up, but a lot of the details are true.
We Were Soldiers stays pretty close to actual history, although the ending was totally unrelated to anything that actually happened, and Black Hawk Down was based on actual events, but with many of the characters composited together or renamed.
Tucker: The Man and His Dream gets the critical facts right, embellishes things slightly as far as the conspiracy goes, and has composite characters, but if that’s all that one knew of Tucker, they’d have a pretty good idea of what happened.
A co-worker of mine praised the accuracy of A Christmas Story, citing only a couple of out-of-date toys for whatever year the story was supposed to be (1952?).
Stanley Kubrick, for Barry Lyndon, used authentic period clothing and uniforms, borrowed from museums. I heard he also used the ghastly lead-based makeup of the period for some scenes, but I have my doubts.
If food were sex, that movie would’ve been hardcore porn!
Waterloo.
Rod Steiger was brilliant
I’ll nominate a favourite of mine, Das Boot. It’s extremely accurate, even according to people who were there. Partly because it’s based on a very factual book, and partly because the director (Wolfgang Peterson) was obsessive about getting everything just right.
It’s also a very powerful film - even my wife, who doesn’t like war movies, was riveted to the screen (metaphorically, you understand) throughout the Director’s Cut version (about 3.5 hours). I prefer the “uncut” version, which is nearly 5 hours, and still not too long for me.
Did Mr. Tucker really dress in two-tone suits and crazy colors as Jeff Bridges did? He looked almost like a cartoon of 40s style. A few other things in the pic struck me that way, but overall it was a very fun watch.
I was unusually satisfied with the late 50s vibe in Redford’s Quiz Show, although when you watch clips from the old show, Van Doren and Stempel don’t come off quite so “broad” as Fiennes and Turturro played them.
Not a lot wrong with Good Night and Good Luck at all, outside of casting Frank Langella as Bill Paley ca. 1954. Alec Baldwin would have been better.
This will probably get laughed out of the thread, but the director of A Knight’s Tale repeatedly insists over and over on the DVD commentary that his movie is actually very historically accurate. I assume he’s not including the group of peasants singing Queen in this assessment. 
And, I have to say, the IMDB nitpickers only point out one historical inaccuracy (“Edward was not called the Black Prince until years after his death.”), though lots of continuity and filming gaffes.
I’ve only seen a handful of color photos of Preston and I don’t remember about the color of his suit, but I know that in one of them, he’s got an almost psychedelic colored tie on, so it’s entirely possible.
We did for the first few months, until someone used it for vandalism.
My first thought was Apollo 13 as well. Ron Howard said that be knew it would be the version of the story that people remembered most so he took great care to keep the important details intact. Much of the dialogue in the capsule, especially, around the accident has verbatim from the transcripts.
I’ll just mention, for anyone who hasn’t seen it, that 2001: A Space Odyssey isn’t even close to accurate concerning the known events of that year 
Meanwhile, although I of course wasn’t there, Band of Brothers jibed pretty closely with the stories my father told me of his experiences in the infantry in Belgium and Germany during the late stages of the war.
I’ll throw in A Bridge Too Far, which apparently portrays the events of Operation Market Garden fairly accurately.
Lastly, I’ll second Apollo 13 and Das Boot, but even there nitpickers apparently can find numerous deviations from fact.
What was accurate?
The armor? I saw pieces of armor from at least a 400 year span in that movie, many from a few hundred years after the setting of the movie. Then of course there is the silly “picket fence” front on the Black Prince’s helmet. Where did that come from?
The costuming? It looks like the wardrobe mistress raided the bargan bin at Jo-Anne fabrics after the local Ren Faire folks had already been there.
Historical facts? Really? Chaucer was a barker for a jouster? Never read that.
Sorry I have to call bullshite on any claim that this movie was anything but a piece of fluff. If the director thinks it is even vaguely historically accurate he needs to read a book or two. Historical research does not consist of watching “The Black Shield of Falworth” and having your secretary take notes. :rolleyes:
There was, however, a real Ulrich von Lichtenstein, who was reputed to be a great jouster.
He probably didn’t know any David Bowie songs, though.
I have my doubts that he borrowed 18th-century clothing from museums, too. Not only would have have had to club the museum guards over the head (which I would not for a minute put past Kubrick), but he’d have had to get the great-big 20th-century actors into the teeny 18th-century clothing, and it would have fallen into shreds within five or ten minutes.
Maybe he borrowed them to use as models for new costumes? Seems like that might be a reasonable thing for a museum to agree to, under certain circumstances.
The film’s two credited costume designers might very well have done that, but “used authentic period clothing and uniforms, borrowed from museums” as costumes is hugely unlikely.