Most popular yet awful history movies

[RockyIII]

Name some of the most well-known history-based movies that were really bad due to acting, or storyline, or actual accuracy of historical events.
To me, the biggest disappointment must have have been watching 'Valkirie' with Tom Cruise. Never seen such a bad performance of English actors trying to pass for German Nazis. Their mannerisms, attitudes, accents were all totally wrong and took me out of the movie

[Mothravka]

Yeah, the one you mention is pretty bad. Others I can think of are Braveheart (1995), Gladiator (2000), The Last Emperor (1987) and Hacksaw Ridge (2016). Yuck.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Mothravka

Yeah, the one you mention is pretty bad. Others I can think of are Braveheart (1995), Gladiator (2000), The Last Emperor (1987) and Hacksaw Ridge (2016). Yuck.

Why Braveheart, to be specific?

Also, did you guys think that the Darkest Hour was an accurate representation of characters and events of WWII?

[Al_The_Strange]

Braveheart is not an accurate representation of history or those historic figures. Same with Gladiator.

I still find Braveheart extraordinarily moving, but I can see the point where it's fake and Hollywood-ized. Maybe even a little pretentious since it tries to pass off as real history. Gladiator has more gravitas in my opinion since it gets a lot of the little details right, even though the overall story is altered from actual events.

For me, all this pales in comparison to 1962's The 300 Spartans, which is the one I find most disappointing. It's been a while since I saw it, but I remember being let down by how off the costumes, locales, props, and above all, the tactics of the battle looked. Of course, Zack Snyder's 300 goes way overboard with a lot of things, but as a comic adaptation can it really be faulted? Frank Miller did get some things surprisingly right about Thermopylae--if you took out the fantastic aspects (the battle rhinos and elephants, the mutated bad guys, the big bad wolf, the sexy oracle dance) and covered up those manly Spartan abs, it'd be much more spot-on.

300: Rise of an Empire wowed me with the sea battles and such, since I remember studying Themistocles and the battle of Salamis in school. I still took the movie as pure fiction though.

Can't comment on Darkest Hour yet since I haven't seen it. Sorry gang. When it comes to WWII, Saving Private Ryan seems to get the battle aspects the most accurately, even if the plot is hard to swallow. If we count TV, Band of Brothers is probably the most perfect WWII thing we have.

[ogjongray]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Name some of the most well-known history-based movies that were really bad due to acting, or storyline, or actual accuracy of historical events.
To me, the biggest disappointment must have have been watching 'Valkirie' with Tom Cruise. Never seen such a bad performance of English actors trying to pass for German Nazis. Their mannerisms, attitudes, accents were all totally wrong and took me out of the movie

Cruise is tied with Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker's Dracula for worst attempt at an accent. If you can't do the accent, play it like Harvey Keitel in The Last Temptation of Christ. I never thought I would hear a New York accent in a story set in biblical times. I kept waiting for him to yell "Yo, Jesus!"

[phobicsquirrel]

Might as well put all films up since they Hollywood things. No film is not going to be 100% accurate, you want that go to a war zone. I can't believe Braveheart SPR, and gladiator was mentioned.... Wow. While they are Hollywood films they have some authenticity to them.

[surfdude12]

Robin Hood takes the cake, with Kevin Costners american accent.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by phobicsquirrel

Might as well put all films up since they Hollywood things. No film is not going to be 100% accurate, you want that go to a war zone. I can't believe Braveheart SPR, and gladiator was mentioned.... Wow. While they are Hollywood films they have some authenticity to them.

We probably will wind up having every historic epic listed in this thread. Even though history should be an objective reality, it's viewed through too many different lenses and everybody has different opinions about how it's represented. Thus, every event passed with the Hollywood lenses will have their detractors.

I'm personally not a detractor of all these you mention, but I see how others can be.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by phobicsquirrel

Might as well put all films up since they Hollywood things. No film is not going to be 100% accurate, you want that go to a war zone. I can't believe Braveheart SPR, and gladiator was mentioned.... Wow. While they are Hollywood films they have some authenticity to them.

True, but there should be a threshold of accuracy, no? Clearly a historical film that is 80% accurate is far different than one that is 10% accurate. I don't know what that threshold is. To me, if the critical facts (e.g. protagonist name, protagonist mission, etc) of the film are false, that's the key. I dont care if a film takes liberty with some of the side plot, etc, since I get that writers need to sometimes spice history up, but the critical facts should be at least defensible vs. historical record.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by phobicsquirrel

Might as well put all films up since they Hollywood things. No film is not going to be 100% accurate, you want that go to a war zone. I can't believe Braveheart SPR, and gladiator was mentioned.... Wow. While they are Hollywood films they have some authenticity to them.

I am ok with portrayals of fictitious events within a real historical period. My issue is when a movie holds itself as an accurate portrayal of real historical events with real historical characters when it's everything BUT accurate and everything just looks, sounds, and feels very OFF

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

True, but there should be a threshold of accuracy, no? Clearly a historical film that is 80% accurate is far different than one that is 10% accurate. I don't know what that threshold is. To me, if the critical facts (e.g. protagonist name, protagonist mission, etc) of the film are false, that's the key. I dont care if a film takes liberty with some of the side plot, etc, since I get that writers need to sometimes spice history up, but the critical facts should be at least defensible vs. historical record.

That was my point.

I think there should be some sort of accountability when a movie production claims that 'this is the account of those men and women, blah blah blah"

[philzilla]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

We probably will wind up having every historic epic listed in this thread. Even though history should be an objective reality, it's viewed through too many different lenses and everybody has different opinions about how it's represented. Thus, every event passed with the Hollywood lenses will have their detractors.

I'm personally not a detractor of all these you mention, but I see how others can be.

History is written by people, people are subjective, there is no such thing as objective history
Even a camera lies

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by philzilla

History is written by people, people are subjective, there is no such thing as objective history
Even a camera lies

To an extent maybe, but I think a film should be clear in its intents when dealing with history and high profile historical characters. Tom Cruise as Colonel Clause von Stauffenberg was a little too much to take, for example

[AKORIS]

done with this thread as soon as I read the 2nd post.....

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

done with this thread as soon as I read the 2nd post.....

Hacksaw Ridge did not work for me. All the shots looked too digital and smooth; very fake looking, over-choreographed battle scenes; too much over-acting when it was not needed at times.
I think movies like A bridge on the River Kwai had a little more historical foundation and the performances were not so over the top

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by philzilla

History is written by people, people are subjective, there is no such thing as objective history
Even a camera lies

if people are subjective, then there is no such thing as a person saying "there is no such thing as"

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by Mothravka

Yeah, the one you mention is pretty bad. Others I can think of are Braveheart (1995), Gladiator (2000), The Last Emperor (1987) and Hacksaw Ridge (2016). Yuck.

Not sure if trolling...

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by philzilla

History is written by people, people are subjective, there is no such thing as objective history
Even a camera lies

Originally Posted by surfdude12

if people are subjective, then there is no such thing as a person saying "there is no such thing as"

Originally Posted by gkolb

Not sure if trolling...

Ok guys, let's rephrase it: name history-based movies that for whatever reasons irked you or rubbed you the wrong way.

To me, Valkirie takes the cake

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Ok guys, let's rephrase it: name history-based movies that for whatever reasons irked you or rubbed you the wrong way.

To me, Valkirie takes the cake

My post was not referring to you. You're good, your thread is good.

[Nielsb90]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Hacksaw Ridge did not work for me. All the shots looked too digital and smooth; very fake looking, over-choreographed battle scenes; too much over-acting when it was not needed at times.
I think movies like A bridge on the River Kwai had a little more historical foundation and the performances were not so over the top

I agree 100%. I have no idea why this movie is praised the way it is.