I’ve been told I look rather like John Adams.
Clothing was expensive to a large degree because of the amount of work necessary to get from flax plant or sheep to finished product. For the poor, the trick would be to have as much of the work as possible done by someone in your household. (“Time is money” doesn’t apply to pre-industrial civilizations, for the most part.) I don’t know how much a poor family in Rome itself, or another city, could have done for themselves - spinning needs only a cheap spindle and distaff, but even a simple upright loom would take quite a bit of floor space in a tiny, crowded apartment, and require expensive wood for the frame. Still, even if they had to buy the cloth, there was money to be saved by having a woman in the home sew it into tunics for the family.
A farming family, of course, could start by raising the appropriate plants or critters and spend little money in getting to the finished garment. Of course it would take a lot of time, but they had nothing but time.
Maybe it’s the velvet frock coat, knee stockings and wig. 
Young Guns contains several accurate scenes:
The Killing of Buckshot Roberts in the outhouse.
The asassination of the Sheriff from behind him.
The escape from the burning house surrounded by the cavalry and sheriff’s deputies.
Charley Bowdre’s, (Casey Siemeizko), constant complaints that Billy got all the press while he, (Bowdre), did more of the killing.
A terrible movie that was surprisingly accurate.
Billy’s jailbreak (pistol left for him in outhouse, killing the guard he liked [because the guard wouldn’t stand down] and then toying with the one who’d antagonized him]) also was pretty accurate, and they gave Billy’s real name as Henry McCarty rather than as William H. Bonney (as much an alias as Billy the Kid but said in more than a few print sources to be his real name). But agreed, bad movie all around.
A Bridge Too Far seems like a WWII movie like all WWII movies. You know, based loosely on all of WWII in Europe slapping a whole bunch of stories together more or less truthfully. But after I had seen it 100X on Saturday afternoons as kid I learned that it got more of Market Garden right than wrong and really tried to push for a high degree of accuracy for the film. There are nitpicky problems sure - but they are nitpicky and it is based on a really, really important book of the same name. But I had no idea of all this as a kid.
Shortly after MPatHG Terry Gilliam made Jabberwocky, which also did the filthy-mediæval-world thing extremely well.
I’ve been told that he holds a degree in medieval history, which makes perfect sense seeing his work in the area.
I love how they can tell the difference between a king and a peasant in Holy Grail. That was probably highly accurate as well. 
ETA: The book was about the Knight in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale (Wikipedia link).
Young Guns is a bizarre movie. They got a lot of small details right. Someone, somewhere, did some serious research. But then they deliberately mangled the big stuff.
Here’s one- Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III - Turtles In Time.
Now I can’t present a cite as, 1) this information comes from a magazine I read when the first movie came out in 1993, and 2) I am not an expert on medieval Japanese armor, but I read that the costume desginer actually did a lot of research and accurately reproduced the armor worn by the TMNTurtles in the film. I remember it because I thought it was odd that there was so much work put toward the realistic armoring of human-sized talking turtles.
I was told by someone that Erik the Viking is surprisingly accurate, but I haven’t seen it in years.
A lot of jobs relating to clothing are pretty gross. Dyeing and tanning are terrible, but they seem much worse to us today than to, say, the average Roman or Medieval European, who wouldn’t have the modern revulsion about urine and feces.
Weighted looms don’t take up much space (or backstrap looms) but I don’t know if they were widely used in post Bronze-Age Europe. I bow to Miss Purl’s expertise- did they tend to use upright looms?
The Great Escape. You watch that movie and you think, there is no way this can be the way it really happened. All that digging? Disposing of all that dirt? Making all those identity papers and civilian clothes? All that equipment they got? Electric lights in the tunnel, fercrisakes??? And then, something that just MUST be a made-up-for-the-movie cliche, that after all that work the tunnel came up short of the woods and only a third or so of the planned escapees actually got out.
Then you read the (non-fiction) book and find out that, if anything, the movie toned down the work involved and didn’t quite go far enough to capture the scope of what those men did. But most of the details in the movie are just spot on.
Sure, the after-escape part is a lot of fiction, especially Steve’s motorcycle chase, but even then the basic facts that only three got fully away, and fifty were murdered in cold blood are accurate.
And it’s a really entertaining movie.
Many colours could be dyed in after the fact by boiling the cloth with the plants in question - yellow and brown are commonly accieved this way. You get an unneven, often short-lasting colour, but that was how you saw the difference between rich and poor - the rich had bright, clean colours and more variety in colours. But the poor could home-dye some colours pretty cheaply.
I’ve seen it done with yellow (produced from a white, moss-like growth found on some big rocks.). The result was a bright, if somewhat dirty yellow.
The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers are very good for clothing, furniture and filth.
Also, word has it that when scouting locations for The Duelists Stanley Kubrick came upon a barn in France that would be perfect for one of the earlier fight scenes. Agreement was reached with the owner and when they opened the barn to set up equipment, 2 coaches from the Napoleonic period in near-pristine condition! They cleaned them up and used them in the film.
They had ex-POWs from Stalag Luft III as advisors (and if you compare with the illustrations in the book, they match up perfectly), so they got the look down perfectly. On the othere hand, they very heavily overdramatized things – They didn’t quite steal an airplane, although they came awfully close. No one wass gallivanting around on motorcycles and assaulting German soldiers – that was an invitation to a bullet. Stalag Luft III wasn’t “where they put all the rotten eggs” – that was Strafelager Kolditz (which has its own books and movie, and is where the POWS built their own escape plane in secret).
Most important, no Americans were around at the time of the escape. It’s noty the Americans’ fault – they were originally at the camp, and did contribute to the escape, but the German s had hoped that the Americans and British would always be fighting, which would keep them from getting anything accomplished. But the two groups got together too well, and they separated the Americans, putting them in another camp only months before the breakout. There was talk, among the prisoners, of moving the date up, but it was tabled as too risky. All of this could’ve made for fine drama, but the movie went the usual route and over-did the American role, even making Americans the top scrounger and the “Escape King”.
There are several online sites contrasting the film and the reality. Wikipedia is a good place to start:
The Duelists was directed by Ridley Scott, not Stanley Kubrick. And for a low-budget film, it’s astounding in its attention to historical detail. Since they used so many outdoor locations and buildings that had been around for hundreds of years, they spent very little on sets and were thus able to devote a huge percentage of their budget to the elaborate costumes.
On the DVD commentary, Ridley Scott tells how he was approached by the mayor of a small French town where the filming was even then going on. The mayor, an amateur historian, repeatedly insisted that the script was filled with errors – the number of duels fought was wrong, the details of each fight were inaccurate, etc. As far as the filmmakers were concerned, of course, they were simply staging an adaptation of a short story by Joseph Conrad – not reconstructing actual historical events. When they made further inquiries among the locals, they realized that a) not only was Conrad’s story based on real people and events, but b) the author himself had visited the region to conduct research while writing the book. That the location chosen for the filming coincided with the place where the events had happened was pure chance.
Thanks, I was going on memory and no coffee.