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.
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 would have to agree but I think Mel Gibson did get one film right, that being the one about the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus Christ in "The Passion" Not trying to stoke up a religious debate or anything, but I think he did a good job with that particular film.
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.
Gibson did "We were Soldiers Once" which was a very accurate depiction of the 7th cav's action in the Ia Drang Valley. He closely followed the very excellent book co-written by the battlefield commander, Hal Moore. Gibson should get Historical props for that.
Although I don't know a great deal about the history, I suspect the Australian picture "Gallipoli" might be one of the all-time great historical renditions.
By the way, if you look up a film on IMDB, and click on "Goofs" in the left margin, (under "Fun Stuff") you will get the comments from very very knowledgable history buffs about various kinds of errors that they spotted in the movie. (As well as technical gaffes on the set.) The gun buffs are particularly quick to spot anachronistic or mis-used weaponry. It is often hilarious to read these with respect to the historically- (and otherwise) sloppy pictures, like "Saving Private Ryan", whose alert viewers ROFL about some 150 goofs---more than one per minute. Compared to three in "Gallipoli" and 18 in "The Thin Red Line".
U-571 was horrendously wrong about so many things, they even had to add a disclaimer/apology at the end of the movie to avoid protests and possible lawsuits
Does anyone here go to the film webpage of the Guardian newspaper's website (www.guardian.co.uk)? Every week they analyse a well-known movie for its historical accuracy. Some of the reviews they've published are absolutely hilarious !
I was about to post this movie as one showing "historical inaccuracies" when I read your post. Quote from IMDB "the submarine U-571 was never actually captured. The submarines U-559 and U-110 were the ones captured with the codebooks but by the British Navy in August 1941, four months before the United States entered the war."
On another note (and possible subject for a future historically innaccurate movie), having just returned from a visit to the UK, I read in a newspaper there about an American claim that the Battle of Britain would never have been won had it not been for the American development of the high octane fuel the RAF used - see RAF fighter planes 'used super-fast fuel from the U.S. to win the Battle of Britain' | Mail Online
There are some other comments on innaccuracies in war movies and some funny comments by readers.
Another laughable headline-writer's ignorance. (I think---correct me if I'm wrong) High octane fuel is used because of its super-slow, not super-fast ignition. Octane boost retards the detonation. As far as the aircraft is concerned, higher octane increases power, but not necessarily speed.
Yeah, that "The Patriot" picture screwed it up. For one thing Cornwallis was younger than portrayed and was an energetic and imaginative soldier.
Also the British troops had long since adapted to American conditions and used a far more practical kit than that portrayed in the picture----they cut their coats down into short jackets, cut their hair short, carried hatchets and tomahawks, wore practical hats and caps and were well versed in open order, brush and light warfare. Indeed, the Brits bushwhacked us more often than we bushwhacked them.
Clark (Charlton Heston) and Lewis (Fred McMurray) are romantic rivals for the same Washington socialite when President Jefferson dispatches them to explore the Louisiana Purchase lands and find a water passage to the Pacific. While this solves McMurray's' love problems, Heston's life is complicated by falling in love with Sacajawea (Donna Reed) and damned if he isn't in another love triangle since Sacajawea has an inconvenient husband along. Despite these distractions, McMurray and Heston blaze their way west with numerous bloody encounters with Indians and multiple near calamities from nature.
This was how 1955 Hollywood treated the events in "Far Horizons", the only effort to bring that epic story to film. In reality, the expedition lost no members and killed a single Indian, during the journey home. That was insufficient bloodlust for audiences, so the motion picture added all sorts of battles. In general, the expedition was treated as the background for the central plot..the Heston/Reed romance, this despite no such relationship ever actually existing.
The true story is gripping enough that it would make a good movie without all the fictional claptrap and I had been hoping that the recently passed 200th anniversary might move someone to take a crack at it. Apparently not. "Far Horizons" remains the only treatment and it is a factually sloppy one.
I was about to post this movie as one showing "historical inaccuracies" when I read your post. Quote from IMDB "the submarine U-571 was never actually captured. The submarines U-559 and U-110 were the ones captured with the codebooks but by the British Navy in August 1941, four months before the United States entered the war."
On another note (and possible subject for a future historically innaccurate movie), having just returned from a visit to the UK, I read in a newspaper there about an American claim that the Battle of Britain would never have been won had it not been for the American development of the high octane fuel the RAF used - see RAF fighter planes 'used super-fast fuel from the U.S. to win the Battle of Britain' | Mail Online
There are some other comments on innaccuracies in war movies and some funny comments by readers.
100 Octane aviation fuel was perfected in the U.S.,at the urging of Jimmy Doolittle,it gave Allied aircraft a significant range and preformance advantage over the 87 octane Axis.
Great thread. The one movie overlooked here, which surprises me, is Turner's GETTYSBURG with Martin Sheen, Tom Beringer, and a host of other famous actors. How accurate was this film to what actually happened on the battlefield for those three days?
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.
!
