10 Most Historically Inaccurate Films?
So what you're telling me is Tom Cruise was not really captured by Samurais and did not actually save Japan. I refuse to believe this. I refuse to believe this. Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Titanic really sunk to the bottom of the ocean. Anyone notice anything strange about this list? Because Hal is not real right? RIGHT? [ Inaccurate Films ]
Slow.Internet.Day. I KNOW.
|
|
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c630a53ef00e551945de58834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Films?:



The last film listing was just plain silly. Yesterday's tomorrow is always speculation. It can't be factual by design. That some of its predictions did not materialize by the real year 2001, does not diminish its credibility -- or its impact.
Posted by: Arye Michael Bender | March 28, 2008 at 07:42 PM
Yes the last film listing is more then silly. It is plain stupid. The writer simply does not know what is historicle film. Modt of the listed there are not even come close to the definition. If anyone thinks Apocaliptico has anything to do with history as we know it he needs his High Scole diploma taken back let alone to write for the LA Times.
Posted by: Peter | March 28, 2008 at 07:51 PM
I think Peter, you need a refresher course in English. Your spelling and grammar are atrocious. For you to criticize anyone's writing or perspective is a miscarriage.
What? The words are too big for you? try these: www.dictionary.com
Posted by: Figgins | March 28, 2008 at 09:53 PM
Christie was not likely even born when 2001 went into production, taking a stab at what the future may hold. True HAL, or any computer that we know of has not killed a space crew (thankfully), but give me a break, to call a future based fictional account of what could be "historically inaccurate" is a bit much. Actually, many of the gizmos and trends shown in the film and the book it was based upon, have come to be commonplace. With all due respect. I think Christie owes Stanly and Arthur a "pass" on this one.
Posted by: Steve | March 28, 2008 at 10:41 PM
The worst inaccuracy in The Patriot was where the British lock the townspeople in a church and burn them alive. The Nazis committed that atrocity on the Eastern Front. Way to much to lay on the British in the 18th century.
Posted by: MichaelGOP | March 28, 2008 at 11:58 PM
The British were much more passive aggressive in their extermination practices.
Posted by: H Tran | March 29, 2008 at 03:02 AM
Did someone forget about the MOST inaccurate movie ever? Oliver Stones JFK
Posted by: Boss | March 29, 2008 at 06:45 AM
My selection: The Passion of the Christ (Gibson), Spartacus, Ben Hur, The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer), Jesus of Nazarteh (Zeffirelli), Napoleon (Abel Gance), Intolerance (Griffith), A man for all seasons (Zinnemann), Kermesse eroique, Gandhi, and El Cid.
Posted by: marc | March 29, 2008 at 07:08 AM
Most of these stories, not all, were fiction and imagination of Anglo Saxon minds written in the name of history. The movies were made by another set of fictitious minds making a mockery of the earlier fiction writers, so called historians. Now in this forum there is a discussion by yet another set of fiction reading, writers and some gullible folks who believe in the history they read as real. Tragedy. What a waste of time.
Future historians, I am sure will write about Bush as great American President who found WMD and destroyed Iraq. In fact this fellow is a criminal - at par with Hitler or Milosevic - who should be brought to justice for his crimes against humanity. He may even be recorded as a Great American President who conquered Afghanistan and brought security to America. Shucks!
Posted by: Anis Mohiuddin | March 29, 2008 at 07:38 AM
A better theme would have been 'The 10 Most Egregiously Historically Inaccurate Movies', i.e., the dramatic license regarding a well-documented event was over the top AND unnecessary to tell a good story. Take 'Pearl Harbor' vs. '30 Seconds Over Tokyo' and 'From Here to Eternity' . '30 Seconds' was an accurate depiction of a legendary WWII event and was still exciting, and 'Eternity' was an Oscar-winning drama based on the author's pre-war experiences as a soldier in Hawaii. 'Pearl', on the other hand...sorry, fighter pilots don't become bomber pilots just because there's a cool secret mission coming up...
Posted by: J. Reece | March 29, 2008 at 07:43 AM
While on the subject of lists, if you're going to a '10 Worst' list, no-budget indies like 'Plan 9' should be EXCLUDED. It's like shooting fish in a barrel and there are so many of them. '10 Worst' dishonors should be reserved for productions involving major studios, major names, and big budgets. In other words, projects by people who should have known better.
Posted by: J. Reece | March 29, 2008 at 07:50 AM
No need to go further back than the current release of National Treasure: It opens with a whopper: The Civil War was still going when Lincoln was assasinated. I suppose only a couple of million will always think of this tragic war as a comic book, as a result. Worse still, the "opening falsehood" is central to development of Cage's character. There is a cheesy approximation between Lincoln's tragic, unifying role, on the one hand, and a supposed flood of national inspiration and identity to be forthcoming due to the character's locating some Olmec gold under the rocks at Sylvan Lake. Sylvan Lake is a goodly distance from Mt. Rushmore, a footnote which conveys the easy contempt of the filmmakers for their audience.
Posted by: Quill Wally | March 29, 2008 at 08:18 AM
I thought number 10 was a joke. Maybe you guys just didn't get it.
Posted by: KP | March 29, 2008 at 08:43 AM
10,000 BC pales beside 1 million BC with Rachel Welch. And weren't the Conquistadors and the end of Apocaliptico about 300 years early?
Posted by: steve | March 29, 2008 at 09:13 AM
I mean, if you are going to pick only 10 historically inaccurate films OF ALL TIME, I just want to know why you even think twice as to put 2001 on the list. I mean, how about Das Boot? Or Fox and the Hound. That's probably more worth mentioning...
I am just saying that foxes and hounds....don't really get along in real life. BUT THEY COULD.
Posted by: Christie | March 29, 2008 at 09:35 AM
Is it any wonder that three of the top ten are by that anti-semetic crypto nazi Melvin. Between two foot Tom and Mel-I don't-really-hate-jews the movie industry should be weeping.
Posted by: Scott S. | March 29, 2008 at 09:43 AM
Anyone remember the British TV series "Space: 1999"? We lost the MOON in that show, blown away by a sockpile of fissionable material and sent on a journey where it took literally a WEEK to travel from star-to-star at incredibly sublight speeds. Guess the moon that's up there now is a governmnet coverup fakey-moon!
As for "2001", the did get flat-screen tv right (briefly seen on the shuttle). Now, the sequel "2010" had the Soviets still in business--whoops...
Posted by: Paul in Pennsylvania | March 29, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Paul raises a good point. Fakey-moon and soviets. Clearly, this article needs to be re-written.
Posted by: Christie | March 29, 2008 at 10:27 AM
you totally forgot Waterworld.
Posted by: Downtonwon Atty | March 29, 2008 at 10:31 AM
How could I forget Kevin Costner. He's going to save us all.
Sort of.
Well, what's left of us anyway.
I think. It's been a while since I've seen Waterworld. I remember...water....
some people dressed like viking-hippie-mad-max-ish types.
And some girl.
And more water.
Posted by: Christie | March 29, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Apparently problems with historical, and biological, accuracy can be catching. While this phrase, "an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from their infected livestock" is right to some extent, smallpox is a human disease, passed from person to person. Maybe the confusion is that at some point in the last 10,000 years the virus that causes cowpox probably mutated and infected people, starting the new disease.
Posted by: Chuff | March 29, 2008 at 10:34 AM
The most historically inaccurate movies as a group by far are the films on the Alamo -- and there have been plently of them. They portray Americans fighting for freedom although all of them had not been born in Texas; they forget that it was part of an expansion of slave interests; that the occupiers of the Alamo had not business being in Texas; that people like Jim Bowie and Travis were hardly heroic figures; that most Mexicans opposed the American encroachments; that the Americans were seasoned soldiers with the latest weaponry; and that it was propaganda. Somehow this gets lost at times when Americans find the need to wear flag pins.
Posted by: rodolfo f. acuña | March 29, 2008 at 12:12 PM
let-s not forget, this is the LA Times and Yahoo centrury, so why get excited about inaccuracies then?
Posted by: mensch | March 29, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Don't forget Saving Private Ryan, which would have us believe that only Americans participated in the Normandy invasion. Or that silly movie about the Americans capturing the U-Boat ("U-something or other" with the Enigma code machine, which was actually done by the British.
Posted by: Tom Loomis | March 29, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Stigmata.
That should be on the list.
Posted by: Christie | March 29, 2008 at 12:43 PM