Top 10 Historically Misleading Films

No one ever said that movies—even those about historical events—were obligated to reflect fact. Still, some have taken a few too many liberties.

  • Share
  • Read Later
26 comments
JoAnnFoxwell
JoAnnFoxwell

of course Hollywood always tweeks history to make interesting to those who know very little about history, most individuals, no matter how important in history are not interesting enough, by Hollywood's standards, to keep our attention for over 2 hours. But it was a good movie


RobComment
RobComment

No, Marion didn't kill Native Americas "for fun" and he didn't rape slaves. You are doing exactly (actually worse) than you are claiming this movie does.

NevinDarden
NevinDarden

Its too bad most dragoons pictured in the movie were German. This review cuts a great movie to pieces, yes it is exaggerated in the film but atrocities did occur. 

BethGordon-Banda
BethGordon-Banda

the brits are not the refined gentlemen you think...this was war and for you to say they never did anything like that is only because it was not documented.  the brits are some of the cruelest people on earth they used to hang draw and quarter people put their heads on spikes .. etc.  don't let that refined accent fool you.  they have been known to even kill their own family just to get ahead.. check the royal family history.. and as for the man raping his slaves.. that was common practice... they were considered livestock and to get more livestock without paying .. you bred with them .. just check into thomas jeffersons past.  i do not condone such actions....but lets paint the picture properly .. shall we

NickSpanlopis
NickSpanlopis

@RobComment @MitchellPaulBarker @BethGordon-Banda 

Actually, that is accurate. The settlement of the Americas killed more than 99% of all native persons living at the time. Spain was responsible for large massacres in the South and west, Brittain to the North and East. France, interestingly enough, did little more than establish trading post with the Natives. Manifest Destiny if you will recall was our rallying cry after all. A low estimate would be that the settlement of North and South America resulted in the deaths of at least 100 million souls. Between the unintentional and sometimes intentional spreading of plagues, the use of forced resettlement, and out right massacres we didn't leave much chance for the natives. Time and again we made treaties just to break them shortly there after. Even natives that attempted to civilize like those in the south east were forced into concentration camps. Consider Andrew Jackson's Trail of Tears or our hero Custard and his last stand in a battle he started.


The "States", if you want to start from 1776, were only responsible for between 8 and 20 million native deaths depending on how you want to count things but even at the low end it exceeded the holocaust by a large margin. If you doubt this, consider, the largest herds on Earth once roamed the mid-west where the plains Indian tribes had access to bountiful food resources until both they and the herds were wiped out. The largest herds on Earth, 30 to 60 million buffalo once roamed the mid west. I am sure you can imagine the populations that would have supported.


What ever college our friend attended, they got the part about the massacre of the Natives being worst than the holocaust right.

JessePugh
JessePugh

But many Indians died of disease, not being killed

ShaneMcCausland
ShaneMcCausland

It wasnt historically accurate, thats fine. I think we can enjoy it as a fiction movie.

The real problem with this movie, is how stupid they painted pre mel gibson warfare. Before he joined the rebels, they were just lining up to knowingly die just standing there like freaking robots.

Do you really think thats what went down? A bunch of farmboys, not brainwashed soldiers, are just going to sit there and face certain death rather then fall back to the woods or something?

And then mel gibson joins the group and says "Hey guys, I got a bright idea, since we have less numbers then them we should use ambush tactics instead of direct warefare!"

Genius, just pure genius. Why didnt I think of that? Uhhhh we only been getting our ass kicked for 2 years damn your smart.

kendrat199
kendrat199

This movie really is terrible. I really wanted to like it, but how they treated the issue of slavery and the British soldiers was just BS. Having slaves (or in this case, "freed" men and women who just willingly work at the plantation) go about their work alongside Mel Gibson's character, smiling, and carefree is just such a slap to American history and to audiences, in general.  It's like the director thought the audience was too stupid to know who the good guys and the bad guys were so he put both groups (American and British) in extremes. Rather than having Mel Gibson's character be seen as a vile character (through owning slaves, killing natives, and/or raping) who's also able to fight for what he loves (in this case family and country), we see a man who's essentially perfect and tragic. This isn't history   Similarly, Jason Isaacs is an amazing actor, but painting him in 2-D light as a psychopath is just sad on the part of the writers and director. We don't know his drive or his motivation or what he gets in his sadistic ways, and he's honestly just used to twist his invisible Machiavellian  mustache.


This film is a POS

RobComment
RobComment

@kendrat199 

Sorry, but all people aren't totally evil. There are really some good people and Gibson played one of them. Maybe everyone you know is rotten, but that doesn't make it true for 7 billion people.

RobComment
RobComment

@kendrat199 

Your liberal professors who filled your head with this blurring of good and evil are/were POS.

m_alza
m_alza

Maybe the Brits didn't burnt civilians alive in the American independence war, but it is historically proved that they invented concentration camps during the Boers campaign among other atrocities against both white and black South Africans.

DavidMurray1
DavidMurray1

@m_alza Except that those 'concentration' camps were more akin to internment camps used by the British and US in WW2 to hold German Italian and Japanese immigrants. NOT the Nazi version.

Mark3532
Mark3532

The first modern concentration camps were created in 1838, in the USA At this time, the United States government, led by President Van Buren, decided to remove the native Cherokee population from their lands and place them all in concentration camps.

This was over 50 years before the Boer War. But don't let the facts get in the way of your spite against the British.

Goldstein71
Goldstein71

@Mark3532 The Aztecs used concentration camps to hold their captives before they carved out their hearts and sacrificed them to their blood gods. This could just go round and round. There are heroes and villains on both sides of almost any war.

roninryuu
roninryuu

I like how the author of the article would rather see a Robin Hood which advocates for the redistribution of wealth as opposed to a Robin Hood who advocates liberty and freedom. Okay, I am being sarcastic, as I would much rather support liberty over socialistic agendas. At the very least, thank you for having the intellectual honesty to distinguish the difference between the two concepts, for they are separate and unable to coincide.

JoeSeijo
JoeSeijo

Who cares if it's not historically accurate. It's a good movie. When I want accuracy, I watch The History Channel or The Military Channel.

ZakariaBziker
ZakariaBziker

The movie is actually based on the Orion theory and other emerging new evidence about the long forgotten history of mankind. It's a daring movie that challenges the status quo and an invitation for open minded people to dare to question the history of mankind. One of the best movies if not the best.