ER mentioned that Kubrick, in his later years, denounced one of his masterpieces, Spartacus, for it's historical inaccuracies.
OK, that made me wonder just what movies are historically accurate?
Hmm. Well first off I imagine Indy is going to gleefully jump into this thread weeping tears of joy. :wink:
Secondly I must admit I can rattle off a long list of grossly inaccurate movies without much effort, but when it comes to accurate ones mostly I think of "the longest day" which was known for it's accurate account of D day from various perspectives.
So if you know a movie that is historically accurate here's the place to recognize it.
OK OK go for it Indy...
Good topic, Sven. 2004's Alamo film was admirably realistic and accurate.
"I think we all just got promoted."
I have to admit it beats the hell out of that joke made in the 50's with John Wayne blowing up the Alamo at the end...
Uh, they didn't know a lot if tge Alamo is still standing? :buggedout:
And sorry, Indy. I know mentioning that. Movie probably made the historian in you wince.
GLORY from 1989 is considered one of the most accurate Civil War films ever made.
Also COLD MOUNTAIN got high marks from historians.
Supposedly KING ARTHUR (2004) is a more realistic retelling of the story, although I'm not sure how much of that is accurate. Great movie tho.
On the other side of the spectrum, Clint Eastwood's Invictus was laughably inaccurate.
Quote from: Trevor on September 03, 2019, 06:50:57 AM
On the other side of the spectrum, Clint Eastwood's Invictus was laughably inaccurate.
If Clint eastwood makes a movie you can bet his political views will dominatre all other concerns. "Sully" proved that.
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on September 03, 2019, 07:27:21 AM
Quote from: Trevor on September 03, 2019, 06:50:57 AM
On the other side of the spectrum, Clint Eastwood's Invictus was laughably inaccurate.
If Clint eastwood makes a movie you can bet his political views will dominatre all other concerns. "Sully" proved that.
Nothing political but there are many things wrong with that film, e.g. the Springbok rugby team train in Cape Town for a match in Johannesburg: nearly 1000 miles away from each other and one at sea level and one at altitude; the security guards at the sports stadium freaking out when the famous aeroplane flies low to wish the Springboks well and I can go on.
Most movies are bulls**t. Don't make them less of what they are-sometimes.
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was miles above propaganda like HITLER-DEAD OR ALIVE (which I also enjoyed- accurate or not!)
What I don't like is garbage like THE CREEP BEHIND THE CAMERA or ED WOOD which portray things that never happened and try to pass it off as history. And I don't think the film makers intended them to be- but lotsa folks who don't know the true history behind it take as factual- and not just a movie to entertain and confuse it with real life. But that's not so much the film makers fault as it is the ignorance of folks who take it as history. Movies are what they are. Look at Tarintino's INGLORIOUS BASTARDS. Total bulls**t. I still enjoyed it.
I think 2005's The New World was reasonably accurate, and oftentimes beautiful, though I guess the definitive take on that story has to remain Disney's Pocahontas, because the talking raccoon was left out by Terrence Malick.
To bookend Chinese imperial history, 1998's The Emperor and the Assassin seems to faithfully take on the known history of Ying Zheng's life, he being more or less the first ruler of a unified China, and Bertolucci's The Last Emperor, from 1987 did not take any egregious detours from fact concerning the pathetic fate of China's last imperial ruler. (It also featured Peter O'Toole, who seems to be working himself into half the movies I mention here lately...)
Quote from: RCMerchant on September 03, 2019, 09:35:29 AM
What I don't like is garbage like THE CREEP BEHIND THE CAMERA or ED WOOD which portray things that never happened and try to pass it off as history. And I don't think the film makers intended them to be- but lotsa folks who don't know the true history behind it take as factual- and not just a movie to entertain and confuse it with real life.
The worst thing about the Ed Wood flick was the idea that Karloff & Lugosi hated each other when in real life, they had high respect for each other.
there was a tv movie mini-series called 'ironclads" that was pretty accurate in accounting the battle of the USS monitor and the CSS Virginia.
I have a Texas historian friend who informed me that The Alamo (1960) - while entertaining - was hugely inaccurate historically.
The one thing I can add is you have a Lithuanian born, South African raised and educated Englishman playing Colonel Travis. :teddyr:
I've heard the movie "Zuu" was close to the truth.
Quote from: Svengoolie 3 on September 09, 2019, 04:02:46 AM
I've heard the movie "Zuu" was close to the truth.
If you mean
Zulu (1964) with Sir Stanley Baker and Sir Michael Caine, yes it was largely accurate. A few inconsistencies here and there but it was mostly accurate. For example, the character of Henry Hook wasn't a malingerer but actually a hero, the troops didn't sing "Men of Harlech" etc.
Quote from: ER on September 03, 2019, 09:49:30 AM
I think 2005's The New World was reasonably accurate, and oftentimes beautiful, though I guess the definitive take on that story has to remain Disney's Pocahontas, because the talking raccoon was left out by Terrence Malick.
To bookend Chinese imperial history, 1998's The Emperor and the Assassin seems to faithfully take on the known history of Ying Zheng's life, he being more or less the first ruler of a unified China, and Bertolucci's The Last Emperor, from 1987 did not take any egregious detours from fact concerning the pathetic fate of China's last imperial ruler. (It also featured Peter O'Toole, who seems to be working himself into half the movies I mention here lately...)
Meeko didn't talk... :(
Quote from: pacman000 on September 09, 2019, 05:33:02 AM
Quote from: ER on September 03, 2019, 09:49:30 AM
I think 2005's The New World was reasonably accurate, and oftentimes beautiful, though I guess the definitive take on that story has to remain Disney's Pocahontas, because the talking raccoon was left out by Terrence Malick.
To bookend Chinese imperial history, 1998's The Emperor and the Assassin seems to faithfully take on the known history of Ying Zheng's life, he being more or less the first ruler of a unified China, and Bertolucci's The Last Emperor, from 1987 did not take any egregious detours from fact concerning the pathetic fate of China's last imperial ruler. (It also featured Peter O'Toole, who seems to be working himself into half the movies I mention here lately...)
Meeko didn't talk... :(
He did but they cut that scene. It was a nice anti-fur industry soliloquy too. Cute Algonquin accent. (Are you buying this at all?)
No, but you made me laugh. :bouncegiggle:
Thank you. :)
My pleasure!