Google: 10 most historically inaccurate movies

http://movies.google.com/feature/10mo...naccurate.html

..and just as you all suspected—here they are:

10,000 B.C.
Gladiator
300
The Last Samurai
Apocalypto
Memoirs of a Geisha
Braveheart
Elizabeth : The Golden age The patriot 2001 : a Space Odyssey
The Patriot
2001: A Space Odyssey

I honestly can’t wrap my head around which moron put this list together or where on earth they got the idea that these belong in the same category.

Some are just physically impossible, others completely miss the mark on the core concepts entirely. Then you have those that merely use historical settings as a loose backdrop for something new—where history isn't even the point. As for Odyssey, I am genuinely at a loss for words regarding such pure idiocy. Even Star Trek is more accurate by comparison, given it doesn't rely on the absurd theory that we'll stumble upon Klingons in just 300 years.

I mean, 10,000 BC wasn't even marketed as some kind of historical epic. Now I'm starting to wonder if Lord of the Rings took similar liberties with actual history 🤣

The list is pretty incredible.
It’s interesting how much Gibson was involved in three of those films—acting in one, directing one, and then pulling double duty as both director and actor in another.
They also conveniently left out the fact that the real William Wallace was basically a thief, a rapist, and a killer of innocent people.

Richard Howard2, if you didn't realize the inclusion of "2001" is a joke, then you're the idiot here, not the people who put the list together.
velvetgardener5, when a movie is titled "10,000 BC," I'd think the creators would feel some level of responsibility toward historical accuracy...
If they had just called it "The Wonderful World of Roland Emmerich," it would be a completely different story.

wearytinker8 said:The list is pretty incredible.
It’s interesting how much Gibson was involved in three of those films—acting in one, directing one, and then pulling double duty as both director and actor in another.
They also conveniently left out the fact that the real William Wallace was basically a thief, a rapist, and a killer of innocent people.

Richard Howard2, if you didn't realize the inclusion of "2001" is a joke, then you're the idiot here, not the people who put the list together.
velvetgardener5, when a movie is titled "10,000 BC," I'd think the creators would feel some level of responsibility toward historical accuracy...
If they had just called it "The Wonderful World of Roland Emmerich," it would be a completely different story.

Then I suppose I am the one lacking sense, since I fail to see the joke.

Are they historically inaccurate films about Christ... or should we just be calling them mythological movies?😁

I don't think any of those movies were actually trying to be "historically accurate." 🤷

It’s honestly a bit much seeing Gladiator on this list. That movie drove me absolutely insane with its blatant historical inaccuracies. Look, I get it—a film isn't strictly obligated to be a textbook, but if we’re deciding that accuracy doesn't matter because the plot is just a web of convenient nonsense, then I’m firmly against feeding more mindless garbage to an already gullible public. It shouldn't be this easy to convince Americans that Europe is some mythical land of dragons; if anything, a film should work to dismantle those tired myths rather than piling new ones on top.

For instance, Gladiator could have been incredible if they had used a wealth of supporting details—think local customs, everyday objects, class dynamics, or even period-accurate warfare—to anchor a truly solid narrative. Instead, they crammed in so much stupidity and falsehood where it wasn't even necessary, which ultimately gutted the story's believability and, quite frankly, killed the film's credibility.

Now, if a movie is aiming for pure fiction or leaning heavily into fantasy elements, that’s a completely different conversation.

To give you a counterexample—the TV series "Rome" provided a brilliant, masterfully executed look at the people and traditions of ancient Rome in just two seasons. A perfect ten out of ten.

@Joseph Lee3, I watched that a long time ago. Tell me, what are all the lies in Gladiator?

If I can jump in here, dear Woody—*Gladiator* is absolute garbage because it completely butchers how people actually acted back in ancient Rome. Take that opening battle between the Romans and the Germans, for instance; it’s a total disaster. The Roman army looks less like a disciplined force and more like an undisciplined mob of street thugs. If you actually want to see what military discipline looked like, go watch the HBO series *Rome*. The Roman legions fought shield-to-shield; nobody was allowed to just break formation and charge out into a field to fight one-on-one against the enemy without permission. What were they, musketeers or something? In a real unit, their own centurion would have taken their head off after the battle for that, and during the fight, the line of legionary shields would have just closed up over them—they’d be written off as dead, and a soldier from the second rank would just step up to fill the gap. And then, after the fight, they’re all dancing around and rolling on the ground with joy? What is this, some kind of festival? It’s like watching a chaotic riot break out in Memphis. That level of breakdown in discipline would have been met with death. They should only have been allowed to celebrate if they were actually permitted to, not every time a soldier gets a little rush of adrenaline. And that’s just the first few scenes—after that, the Hollywood stupidity just keeps piling up for the rest of the movie. For a real look at Rome, watch *ROME*.

...Woody! 😁

Thanks, goldeneagle2! 😍 (my absolute go-to when I need a deep dive into history, politics, social dynamics, or—most importantly—ancient Rome!)

I’d throw a few more critiques into the ring: first off, Commodus actually ruled for thirteen years and was considered a fairly decent, even popular, leader by many. The movie completely flips the script on that reality, shrinking his reign down to just a few months solely to manufacture a believable motive and turn Russell Crowe’s heroism and martyrdom into something legendary.

Then there’s the wardrobe; the court costumes feel like a messy, eclectic mashup of drapery from maybe three or four centuries later. Also, if we're being pedantic, statues during the Roman era were always vibrantly painted, not the colorless white marble we dig up from the ground today.

That’s probably all I can think of for now...

Just your classic American sensationalist hype job, dumping "crucial" info on us like it's some big reveal.

goldeneagle2 said:If I can jump in here, dear Woody—*Gladiator* is absolute garbage because it completely butchers how people actually acted back in ancient Rome. Take that opening battle between the Romans and the Germans, for instance; it’s a total disaster. The Roman army looks less like a disciplined force and more like an undisciplined mob of street thugs. If you actually want to see what military discipline looked like, go watch the HBO series *Rome*. The Roman legions fought shield-to-shield; nobody was allowed to just break formation and charge out into a field to fight one-on-one against the enemy without permission. What were they, musketeers or something? In a real unit, their own centurion would have taken their head off after the battle for that, and during the fight, the line of legionary shields would have just closed up over them—they’d be written off as dead, and a soldier from the second rank would just step up to fill the gap. And then, after the fight, they’re all dancing around and rolling on the ground with joy? What is this, some kind of festival? It’s like watching a chaotic riot break out in Memphis. That level of breakdown in discipline would have been met with death. They should only have been allowed to celebrate if they were actually permitted to, not every time a soldier gets a little rush of adrenaline. And that’s just the first few scenes—after that, the Hollywood stupidity just keeps piling up for the rest of the movie. For a real look at Rome, watch *ROME*.

Sorry man, but that is just straight-up nitpicking and trying to dress up a movie experience that just isn't there. 👎

So how can you say there's no "Alexander"?
Apparently back in 2004, twenty-five Greek lawyers threatened a lawsuit because the film depicted their hero as nothing more than a passionate lover of the male anatomy:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/11/25/alexander/

Joshua Morales38 said:http://movies.google.com/feature/10mo...naccurate.html

..and just as you all suspected—here they are:

10,000 B.C.
Gladiator
300
The Last Samurai
Apocalypto
Memoirs of a Geisha
Braveheart
Elizabeth : The Golden age The patriot 2001 : a Space Odyssey
The Patriot
2001: A Space Odyssey

What a lineup, man... 🤣
First off, I have to give credit to Americans for putting in the effort, but honestly, I’m still waiting to see a single Hollywood historical blockbuster that is actually historically accurate... 😉

Now, some people would probably argue, "Well, we don't watch movies for historical truth, we watch them for..." (fill in whatever reason you have for watching movies), and they wouldn't be wrong...
But even so, certain films are just so incredibly irritating in how they twist history and lean into that heavy "Americanization" that even a viewer who excelled in history class might find themselves rolling their eyes and muttering, "Yeah... sure..." 😁

I can't help but wonder why things like Troy or King Arthur aren't on this list, or why we shouldn't mention Alexander or the fact that about 99% of American war movies fall into this category... 🤣

When it comes to leaving those out while including something like '2001: A Space Odyssey,' my only conclusion is: "😕 You guys are joking, right? 😁"

On a different note, regarding '300,' wasn't that movie based on Miller's comic book (cough... graphic novel, if we're being technical)? As such, it follows the plot of the source material faithfully, rather than trying to follow historical facts...
Of course, nobody actually believes the Spartans were wandering around in nothing but loincloths and other ridiculous caricatures, but I suppose it was just easier for Miller to draw them that way for the sake of contrast, color, or separating the characters from the background... or whatever...
My point is, if that's how it went down in the... graphic novel, and the movie was made exclusively based on that, then I don't really see it as a distortion of the facts at all... 🤷

@goldeneagle2, Joseph Lee3, thanks for the deep dives into Roman customs 😁

Taking a first look at this list gave me what felt like a permanent migraine, but reading Joseph Lee3 and goldeneagle2 actually helped me wrap my head around how things should be categorized. Still, nothing is getting me any closer to tackling this massive list obsession, not even Joseph Lee3 and goldeneagle2 at their absolute best...

btw, since we're talking historical facts about ancient Rome, I read somewhere that the "thumbs down" didn't actually mean death, but something else (can't recall exactly) and that it's one of those huge global myths that's been fooling modern civilization...

Joseph Lee3 said:It’s honestly a bit much seeing Gladiator on this list. That movie drove me absolutely insane with its blatant historical inaccuracies. Look, I get it—a film isn't strictly obligated to be a textbook, but if we’re deciding that accuracy doesn't matter because the plot is just a web of convenient nonsense, then I’m firmly against feeding more mindless garbage to an already gullible public. It shouldn't be this easy to convince Americans that Europe is some mythical land of dragons; if anything, a film should work to dismantle those tired myths rather than piling new ones on top.

For instance, Gladiator could have been incredible if they had used a wealth of supporting details—think local customs, everyday objects, class dynamics, or even period-accurate warfare—to anchor a truly solid narrative. Instead, they crammed in so much stupidity and falsehood where it wasn't even necessary, which ultimately gutted the story's believability and, quite frankly, killed the film's credibility.

Now, if a movie is aiming for pure fiction or leaning heavily into fantasy elements, that’s a completely different conversation.

To give you a counterexample—the TV series "Rome" provided a brilliant, masterfully executed look at the people and traditions of ancient Rome in just two seasons. A perfect ten out of ten.

I can already see the quality here. It can't be bad if Milius is involved...

@Richard Howard2, even though we were going at it hard on a different thread about a week ago, I have to totally agree with you. Saying that Odyssey lacks historical accuracy is basically saying someone is sub-average. The fact that anyone put Odyssey or even 300 in this category is horrifying. The level of pure stupidity here is so extreme it swings between being pathetic and hilarious every few seconds...

Jerry Martin19 said:Taking a first look at this list gave me what felt like a permanent migraine, but reading Joseph Lee3 and goldeneagle2 actually helped me wrap my head around how things should be categorized. Still, nothing is getting me any closer to tackling this massive list obsession, not even Joseph Lee3 and goldeneagle2 at their absolute best...

btw, since we're talking historical facts about ancient Rome, I read somewhere that the "thumbs down" didn't actually mean death, but something else (can't recall exactly) and that it's one of those huge global myths that's been fooling modern civilization...

I can already see the quality here. It can't be bad if Milius is involved...

@Richard Howard2, even though we were going at it hard on a different thread about a week ago, I have to totally agree with you. Saying that Odyssey lacks historical accuracy is basically saying someone is sub-average. The fact that anyone put Odyssey or even 300 in this category is horrifying. The level of pure stupidity here is so extreme it swings between being pathetic and hilarious every few seconds...

Thanks.

Someone suggested this was meant as a joke. Honestly, I find it hard to believe anyone could make a joke like that without simultaneously mocking every other film on the list. The impulse to judge these movies based on historical accuracy is either pure idiocy or a complete lack of creative inspiration. I suspect it's the latter. Nowadays, we are constantly bombarded by endless, unnecessary "Top 10" lists that exist solely for the sake of existing. When a list appears that is this forced, contradictory, inconsistent, and utterly senseless, it only serves to highlight that fundamental stupidity.

Kate Torres said:@goldeneagle2, Joseph Lee3, thanks for the deep dives into Roman customs 😁

I'll add my thanks to theirs. Honestly, now we finally have a blueprint on how to avoid those same historical blunders in future films, which might actually result in an incredible cinematic experience.

There’s a statistician in that one battle scene in Braveheart wearing a watch! Total blunder! And the Romans didn't even have saddles! Then you look at the era when the Titanic sank—people weren't wearing glasses like those! Just pure mistakes!

Movies aren't meant to be microscopic deep dives into ancient customs or perfect recreations of historical events.
This list is just mixing apples and oranges. Comparing 10,000 B.C., Elizabeth, and Braveheart is nonsense—they aren't even in the same genre. Honestly, this list is just as idiotic as most movie lists out there.