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.

Comments

[Barca 'get rid of Thierry Henry' fanatik]

1. Indiana Jones: Indians from the sub-continent do not eat monkeys' brains let alone meat. The movie shows them eating monkeys' brains.
2. All World War II movies: The Soviets arguably dealt a more fatal blow to the Germans than did the Allies-Kursk and Stalingrad, for example. But Hollywood pretends that Americans singularly won World War II in the European theater. Even the British have been relegated to the rafters.

[R Lopez]

Fools. This is exactly what the Times wants. Your comments and feedback. Mission accomplished.

[Christie]

oh noes you've fallen into a vicious trap! RUN AWAY

[J.P.L.]

Uhhh........has there ever been an historically accurate film?

[smi2le]

Let us not omit EXODUS, by Leon Uris, who regarded Palestinians as sub-humans.

[Ian Brooks]

have we reached the supposed time of RoboCop yet? because I want to debate the accuracy of THAT historical film right now.

[John]

The viewpoint expressed in the ten most historically inaccurate movies, and in some of the comments, is simply too narrow and uninformed about the true context of history, and the motivations of its characters. It ignores the rich texture of history, the fact that many historical narratives have been "modernized" and imbued with modern moral, social and cultural perspective, or taken from minimalist Ronald McDonald the "world as it really is" school of thought commonly believed in modern America. For example, we may not really know when the pyramids were built, carbon dating notwithstanding (if they want to claim they came from those with knowledge passed down from the sinking of Atlantis, who are we to say no?) And the character of Tom Cruise in Samurai is more a device than a real person used by the author to show that the values of older, more spiritual cultures, while perhaps seemingly violent (but not as violent as some scenes in the Bible) can enlighten and teach decadent western society a thing or two. I would say more but this is too long already.

[Christie]

Sure.

Robocop is entirely accurate. From start to finish. So is robocop 2. Robocop 3 however, never happened.

[Ian Brooks]

have we just not reached the time period of Robocop 3 yet? or is this in the same sense that Rocky V never happened either and is thus non-canonical.

[Ian Brooks]

have we just not reached the time period of Robocop 3 yet? or is this in the same sense that Rocky V never happened either and is thus non-canonical.

[CBrown]

I'm surprised The Passion of the Christ didn't make the list...

[Christie]

Lets be serious for a minute here, Ian. RoboCop defeats the three Japanese robots? AS IF. Maybe Robocop could take out 1 1/2 Japanese robots. Or 3 midget Japanese robots but 3 full size ones? Noooowaiiiiiiii.

[Christie]

p.s. I would like to submit for discussion Monty Python and the Holy Grail. King Arthur's quest to find the Holy Grail is surely considered historically important. As is the The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. 'Tis one of the sacred relics...

[valleyres]

To include 2001 is interesting, since it's impossible to be "historically accurate" on events that have yet to happen. When I revisited this film in the late '90s however, I noted that a number of the entities in the film no longer existed by 2001: PanAm World Airlines, Bell Telephone (at least not Ma Bell circa 1968), and of course the Soviet Union. Who would have thought in 1968 that these "monoliths" would be gone by the turn of millenia?

[Jon]

I was in high school during Judgment Day. We all hid under our desks and closed our eyes, for a full 5-period day. None of the kids in the grade school were allowed near the playground and nobody could go near the fence, because of skeletons.

At 3:30 the bell rang and we emerged, tentatively, from our makeshift shelters. We edged nervously into the daylight, and made our way home as if nothing had happened, taking the long way around the playground and the fence by the playground because of skeletons.

James Cameron's predicted Judgment Day had come and gone, and we had not lost our lives, but had we lost... our innocence? Maybe a little.

[Bobster]

THREE of the 10 are Mel Gibson movies! But where is Oliver Stone's JFK? That surely must take any prize for the most distorted mish-mash of "history" ever put on film. Wonderfully done garbage.

[Dan]

10,000 BC was a bad movie, but let's be fair! Nothing in the movie states that these pyramids were in Egypt. They could have been anywhere. And the mammoths could have herded or otherwise transported to the construction site. You don't think Hannibal stumbled upon those African elephants in the Swiss Alps, do you?

[B Peacock]

I don't mind a certain level of inaccuracy in films, they are , by and large, works of the imagination and not meant to be documentary's after all. What I can't stand, in films such as Braveheart, Patriot, U wottsit and many such others, is when the basic premise of a film which purports to be based on truth, is so obviously not. Many of today's generation, to whom a ten second video shot is worth a thousand books, will believe these films virtually word for word and that, readers, is a bad thing.

Perhaps it is time for a new certificate; any film containing or made by Mel Gibson should be warning enough, but maybe the letter B should be added to all other historically inaccurate movies which stray too far from the path,

[mak]

People get way too excited about how accurate "historical" movies are. You didn't go to a classroom or a library. You went to the theater! They are entertainment first. Sadly, people with a little historical knowledge boost their self esteem by showing everyone how much smarter they are than the hundreds of people who made the movie. And everyone else misses the point. These movies actually do provide a valuable historiographical service, however: They get people excited about history. If the viewer is motivated to go study more about a movie's subject matter, I think that's great.

[B Peacock]

Mak - I fail to see how a completely inaccurate film provides a valuable service. Entertainment, yes - service, no. If a film is made showing that Iraq was invaded because Saddam Hussain was about to launch a nuclear attack on Chicago, and that everything post invasion day was sweetness and light, how would that be a valuable service?

A warning at the beginning of such a work of historicofiction would be useful.

[Christie]

I was once a computer programmer that lead a secret life as a hacker under the alias "Neo" and I made the mistake of asking the question "What is the Matrix?" This question lead me to a group led by a mysterious man named Morpheus. He offered to teach me about the Matrix. He then told me to choose between a red pill and a blue pill and I always really preferred the colour red, so I went with it. Next thing I know, I wake up naked in some gooey liquid connected to a bunch of wires only to find out that IT'S NOT 2007, it's 2199 and all of humanity is fighting a war against intelligent machines and hey you guys, you really do not want to know what real chicken tastes like. NOT AS GOOD...