Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oliver Stone's JFK is one of the worst for accuracy. It should go without saying that this is just a fictional account of the Kennedy assassination but many people actually have gotten most of their history from this entertaining propaganda.
Braveheart was good but very fictional. Isabella of France was 12 when Wallace was executed!
Not to mention that no way in hell would King Edward have allowed his daughter in law to be alone with a man whom he considered to be a barbarian.
Gibson's historical movies do work as movies, despite their complete inaccuracy and my distaste for his political/religious views. "The Patriot" was also quite fictional. For one thing, the atrocities against supporters of American independence were committed by pro-Loyalist Americans, not Brits - the Brits just sat back and let the colonials do away with their fellow colonials. In the South, the American Revolution was a true civil war. Some of the incidents in that film didn't even happen in real life committed by anyone - they seemed to be patterned after events in WW2. And don't get me started on "The Passion of the Christ"'s inaccuracies!
Would have to give much thought as to best historical films,but my choice for worst ever jumps right onto the page.It is a much honored,multiple oscar winner that recent posts have mentioned;Dances With Wolves.From start to finish,everthing is wrong with this monstrosity.This film is the poster boy of Leftwing Hollywood revisionism;they made this thing saying "this is the way we think things should have been,we dont care how they actually were".
Was "Dances With Wolves" really that left-wing? It seemed to in some ways be more reactionary than 1950s Westerns by sidestepping the "miscegenation" issue by having a white woman raised by the Sioux just happening to be there as a love interest. Even in '50s films there were many romances between the white male leads and the "native" girls (although the actresses who played them were invariably also white....)
However, with such heavy focus placed on Pena's account, these scholars have glossed over the fact that there is a second source, an account which matches the theme if not all the details from Pena. This was taken from an unnamed Mexican officer who was captured at San Jacinto and interrogated by his captors.
I cannot embrace the story without reservations, nor can I feel confident that it cannot be true.
Yeah, the Pena account. I'm not an expert on the subject but I've read a few accounts of The Alamo. Pena, if I remember, also mentioned Travis dying in some gallant counter-charge a la the John Wayne Alamo movie, while in contrast other accounts (Travis's slave I believe) has a more beleivable account of him being killed in almost the first volley of the final Mexican assault.
Also, I just can't beleive Crockett would have been recognized during the heat of battle. I believe some Texans would have attempted to surrendor and have been immediately cut down by one or another mexican soldier as they were clearly directed to offer no quarter.
Just once would like to see Kevin Costner or Mel Gibson do an accurate historical film.If either has done so,I have missed it.Costners 'Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" was awful.Briefly,in "Braveheart" the Princess Isasbella was only a child,the battle of Stirling Bridge was wrong,king Edward l did not die until two years after Wallace's execution,and the Scots had not painted themselves blue like Picts since the Roman occupation.In "The Patriot" Gibson was no Francis Marion.Unlike the film,Banastre Tarlton lived a long and prosperous life after the revolution.He became a general,a MP,was knighted,and did not die until 1833.
Just once would like to see Kevin Costner or Mel Gibson do an accurate historical film.If either has done so,I have missed it.Costners 'Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" was awful.Briefly,in "Braveheart" the Princess Isasbella was only a child,the battle of Stirling Bridge was wrong,king Edward l did not die until two years after Wallace's execution,and the Scots had not painted themselves blue like Picts since the Roman occupation.In "The Patriot" Gibson was no Francis Marion.Unlike the film,Banastre Tarlton lived a long and prosperous life after the revolution.He became a general,a MP,was knighted,and did not die until 1833.
I agree with that in theory. But Robin Hood was a fictional character anyways, isn't he (like King Arthur)? It was just strange in the first place having Robin Hood speak with a California accent. In "The Patriot" I think, although clearly based on the real life people you mentioned, the characters were fictional with slight name changes.
I agree with that in theory. But Robin Hood was a fictional character anyways, isn't he (like King Arthur)? It was just strange in the first place having Robin Hood speak with a California accent. In "The Patriot" I think, although clearly based on the real life people you mentioned, the characters were fictional with slight name changes.
King Arthur was a real person, but there isn't much historical documentation on him due to the times in which he lived, and almost everything about him is myth and legend. It's not known exactly where his kingdom was, it was either in Wales or Cornwall.
I have a friend who's a Welsh nationalist and he gets steamed up every time a film depicts Arthur as "King of England". He said that would be comparable to a film depicting Hitler as leader of France....
If there is one character,real or fictional,that Hollywood has gotten wrong,it is King Arthur.The setting is often 800 years off.We see 6th century Britains wearing 14th century armor,and generally living in a society that would not exist for several hundred years in the future.
Just once would like to see Kevin Costner or Mel Gibson do an accurate historical film.If either has done so,I have missed it.Costners 'Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" was awful.Briefly,in "Braveheart" the Princess Isasbella was only a child,the battle of Stirling Bridge was wrong,king Edward l did not die until two years after Wallace's execution,and the Scots had not painted themselves blue like Picts since the Roman occupation.In "The Patriot" Gibson was no Francis Marion.Unlike the film,Banastre Tarlton lived a long and prosperous life after the revolution.He became a general,a MP,was knighted,and did not die until 1833.
Also... there was no such thing as "First Night" where the Lord got to sleep with the peasant's wife
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Costner and Gibson.
