Comments on: The Most Historically Inaccurate Movies

By: Paula

Paula — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:31:57 +0000

People are saying Hurt Locker was an upset. No. A Serious Man would have been an upset. Hurt Locker deserved Best Picture and it’s just an added bonus that it beat out the most expensive movie ever made.

By: AshleyW

AshleyW — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:32:23 +0000

Hello,

I’m from the better USA! and I think I found my new hangout

So, what’s everyone’s thoughts about the Canadian Olymipic Games?

By: Amos Kiernan

Amos Kiernan — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:49:25 +0000

I adore examples of the articles which have been written, and especially the comments posted! This is the nice site!

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:38:35 +0000

Re: 300 … it was based on a graphic novel. It was not supposed to be historically accurate. It was Frank Miller’s version of how he wanted the movie to be portrayed.

Some movies are supposed to be entertaining as well as loosely based on facts….

By: Robin Bovee

Robin Bovee — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 09:34:30 +0000

Sorry, aber das bezweifel ich ganz stark…

By: Kaz

Kaz — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:58:42 +0000

Sorry I mispelled your name, MCShillilagh

By: Kaz

Kaz — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:56:46 +0000

MVSillilagh -

It is not just the end of Inglourious Basterds that is historically inaccurate. That part is forgiveable, as it is obviously well known to most likely everyone on the planet that the war did not end that way.

A major historical mistake is made right at the start of the film. According to the film the persecution/deportation of French jews started in 1940, just after Germany had invaded France. In reality, the deportation/persecution of French jews was only decided upon and set in motion after June, 1942. Thus what happens to Shosanna’s family in the opening scene would only have happened in late 1942 or 1943. This is a major historical inaccuracy that will have an incorrect subconscious impact on people’s interpretation of WW2 and its belligerents.

By: megan

megan — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:12:41 +0000

How about Inglorious Basterds!!!

By: Chelsey

Chelsey — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:16:02 +0000

I think Inglorious Bastards isn’t on here because it was not meant to be historically accurate, whereas the movies on this list are meant to make you believe that they are.

By: Tourniquet

Tourniquet — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:48:33 +0000

Out of all of these, 10,000 BC easily is the worst offender. Not only for the mammoths, but majority of the creatures they depict in the movie did not live at the same time. (This thoroughly enraged me while I was watching it in theaters, much to the irritation of everyone else present) For starters the Terror Bird (the giant colourful chicken encountered towards the beginning of the movie) would not have existed at the same time as either mammoths or saber tooth cats, it was in fact alive far earlier than either of the 2 which came around after the age of dinosaurs, the terror bird was around before dinosaurs during the time of prehistoric animals and was the largest predator of its time and was a precursor to the raptors of a later era. Another thing that bothered me was that the movie was clearly operating with the idea that humans and mammoths would have been around before the splitting of pangea. There’s simply no way a person could have gone from a frozen tundra to the Egyptian desert in only a few days unless this was true but early humans were not alive during the time when the continents were still fully connected in such a way. Bottom line, this movie pissed me off. Alot. I’m glad other people were annoyed by it’s inaccuracy.