10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies

Our PurseForum community is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker. Thank you!
  1. Films that make your high school history teacher cry.

    We all accept that movies stretch the truth in the interest of building drama. The following ten flicks, however, treat the truth like it was Silly Putty -- pulling and twisting it until it's unrecognizable.

    (Yahoo! Movies)



    10,000 B.C.
    Director Roland Emmerich is usually a stickler for realism (see: sending a computer virus via Macintosh to aliens in Independence Day). So we hate to inform him that woolly mammoths were not, in fact, used to build pyramids. Heck, woolly mammoths weren't even found in the desert. They wouldn't need to be woolly if that were the case. And there weren't any pyramids in Egypt until 2,500 B.C or so.






    300
    Though this paean to ancient moral codes and modern physical training is based on the real Battle of Thermopylae, the film takes many stylistic liberties. The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject. The Spartan council was made up of men over the age of 60, with no one as young as Theron (played by 37-year-old Dominic West). And the warriors of Sparta went into battle wearing bronze armor, not just leather Speedos.






    Gladiator
    Emperor Commodus was not the sniveling sister-obsessed creep portrayed in the movie. A violent alcoholic, sure, but not so whiny. He ruled ably for over a decade rather than ineptly for a couple months. He also didn't kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, who actually died of chickenpox. And instead of being killed in the gladiatorial arena, he was murdered in his bathtub.






    The Last Samurai
    The Japanese in the late 19th century did hire foreign advisers to modernize their army, but they were mostly French, not American. Ken Watanabe's character was based on the real Saigo Takamori who committed ritual suicide, or "seppuku," in defeat rather than in a volley of Gatling gun fire. Also, it's doubtful that a 40-something alcoholic Civil War vet, even one with great hair, would master the chopsticks much less the samurai sword.






    Apocalypto
    This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migraines. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from their infected livestock.
     
    10,000 BC.jpg Gladiator.jpg 300.jpg The Last Samurai.jpg Apocalypto.jpg
  2. Memoirs of a Geisha
    The geisha coming-of-age, called "mizuage," was really more of a makeover, where she changed her hairstyle and clothes. It didn't involve her getting... intimate with a client. In the climactic scene where Sayuri wows Gion patrons with her dancing prowess, her routine - which involves some platform shoes, fake snow, and a strobe light - seems more like a Studio 54 drag show than anything in pre-war Kyoto.





    Braveheart
    Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.






    Elizabeth: The Golden Age
    In 1585, when the movie takes place, Queen Elizabeth was 52 years old - Cate Blanchett was 36 when she shot the film - and was not being courted by suitors like Ivan the Terrible (who was dead by then). And though the movie has her rallying the troops at Tilbury astride a white steed in full armor with a sword, in fact she rode side saddle, carrying a baton. She was more of a regal majorette than Joan of Arc.






    The Patriot
    Revolutionary War figure Francis "The Swamp Fox" Marion was the basis for Mel Gibson's character, but he wasn't the forward-thinking family man they show in the flick. He was a slave owner who didn't get married (to his cousin) until after the war was over. Historians also say that he actively persecuted and murdered native Cherokees. Plus, the thrilling Battle of Guilford Court House where he vanquishes his British nemesis? In reality, the Americans lost that one.






    2001: A Space Odyssey
    According to this film, in year 2001 we would have had manned voyages to Jupiter, a battle of wits with a sentient computer, and a quantum leap in human evolution. Instead we got the Mir Space Station falling from the sky, Windows XP, and Freddy Got Fingered. Apparently the lesson here is that sometimes it's better when the movies get the facts all wrong.
     
    Memoirs Of A Geisha.jpg Braveheart.jpg Elizabeth - The Golden Age.jpg The Patriot.jpg 2001 - A Space Odyssey.jpg
  3. I love to find inconsistencies in movies.
     
  4. Love it! Thanks for posting Caitlin!
     
  5. well i certainly hope no one regarded these movies as one regards a history textbook. on the other hand do you think anyone would have heard of any of those movies let alone all of them had they been historically accurate? doubt it! history was never that exciting, in school or in reality.
     
  6. 300 was the most noticeably inaccurate movie of all time! It was so dumb, I couldn't stop rolling my eyes in the theater. Obviously, the Spartan tale was over-exxagerated to make their battles seem even more spectacular. How many stories are there in history of the underdog battling some 8ft giant, monsters (who were those so-called Persians with the demon-faces?:rolleyes:) and fighters with "magic"? I hate people who say this movie is so accurate. Yes, Persians invaded but they looked human for f-ing sake. :cursing:
     
  7. "Apocalypto
    This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migraines. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from their infected livestock."

    So, the only inconsistency was the God they were sacrificing too? :roflmfao: :roflmfao: :roflmfao:

    I never got the impression at the end that the invading Europeans were saviors...just the typical "oh noes, you is all going to die now" was my reaction. Maybe some are reading too much into it? Great movie either way.
     
  8. Meh. Who cares? I go to the movies for entertainment. For edumacation, I reads books.

    Just saw 10,000,000 BC or whatever it's called. It didn't have quite as many Patented Mel Gibson Tear-Jerking Moments in it as, say, The Patriot, but it was pretty good in an entirely historically inaccurate sort of way..