The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 83    Average: 3.5/5]
68 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 28900
Rating: 3.5
Category: Entertainment
Date: 03/23/08 12:03 PM

68 Responses to 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies

  1. Profile photo of Hydrolysate
    Hydrolysate Male 70 & Over
    340 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 7:56 am
    Link: 10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies - The 10 major movies that make your history teacher cringe.
  2. Profile photo of bochamockado
    bochamockado Male 18-29
    580 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 12:08 pm
    What what what? 300 wasn`t real?

    Sweet Jesus, my dreams have been crushed.

  3. Profile photo of acmoore92
    acmoore92 Male 18-29
    129 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 12:13 pm
    haha. the last one made me laugh. the rest was obvious hollywood, albeit a couple were surprising. 300 seemed overdone, but accurate enough, and gladiator didnt seem too glorified. oh well. guess that`s show biz
  4. Profile photo of EdwinMango
    EdwinMango Female 13-17
    221 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 12:18 pm
    The 4 star rating made me look at this. It was okay, a few of them were pretty funny, people being in the movie who weren`t alive and all. Most history classes don`t teach facts those, a lot of the textbooks are sadly biased.
  5. Profile photo of sheeeeps
    sheeeeps Female 13-17
    429 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm

    i hate that film. i think that the fact its in a MADE UP LANGUAGE really weakened it. ¬_¬

  6. Profile photo of thrash56
    thrash56 Male 18-29
    69 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 12:34 pm
    Hmm, I see they only stuck to relatively recent films. If only they had gone back far enough, they could have had something as extreme as Birth of a Nation in likely first place.
  7. Profile photo of iceco
    iceco Male 18-29
    105 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 12:54 pm
    2001 doesn`t belong on that list. The other movies, when they were made, depicted past events, somewhat according to history. 2001 was predicting the future. Are these people seriously going to point out HISTORICAL inaccuracies in a SCIENCE FICTION movie that takes place several years after the movie is made?
  8. Profile photo of Smashking
    Smashking Male 18-29
    773 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 12:54 pm
    If they put 2001: A Space Odyssey as being wrong about what the future would bring, how about every other `futuristic` movie from back then?
  9. Profile photo of PurdueU BenZ
    PurdueU BenZ Male 18-29
    72 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 12:56 pm
    "300 seemed overdone, but accurate enough" 300 was not a historically accurate movie, it wasn`t even "accurate enough". I just think it was an attempt by Hollywood to depict Persians as "animals then, animals now". Very propoganda-ishly made.

    People need to read up on Persian history, especially now that the war drums are being beaten against Iran.

  10. Profile photo of jetmark
    jetmark Male 30-39
    1024 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 12:58 pm
    "Shakespeare in Love" had nothing to do with anything.
  11. Profile photo of 3justme3
    3justme3 Female 18-29
    498 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 12:58 pm
    hehe i didnt like any of these movies ^_^
  12. Profile photo of narlycharlie
    narlycharlie Male 13-17
    130 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 1:04 pm
    To the few that are complaining about it: I think it is pretty obvious that the 2001 one is a joke....
  13. Profile photo of Zelkari
    Zelkari Male 18-29
    68 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 1:08 pm
    Of course 2001 is fake/inaccurate. Humanity was nearly wiped out on August 29th, 1997 by Skynet.
  14. Profile photo of WNLD
    WNLD Female 18-29
    243 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 1:22 pm
    I`d like to give this article a high rating but it`s obvious the writer is too young to appreciate films made before 1980. Those are the 10 most historically inaccurate films *since 1980*, not of all time.
  15. Profile photo of WNLD
    WNLD Female 18-29
    243 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 1:23 pm
    Yes, I know 2001 S.E. was made before 1980, but it would seem it`s only included on this list because the real 2001 happened within the author`s lifetime. That`s cheating LOL.
  16. Profile photo of Pikachu42
    Pikachu42 Female 18-29
    1492 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 1:30 pm
    LOL...we got freddy got fingered...yeah...that movie was garbage
  17. Profile photo of LoofahBoy
    LoofahBoy Male 18-29
    3301 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 1:43 pm
    "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."

    ROFLMAO. Simply classic.

  18. Profile photo of HI-haole
    HI-haole Male 18-29
    606 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 1:49 pm
    The movie `300` was about the Spartans and their battle with Xerxes and his army, But HELLO... the movie was based on Frank Millers 1998 limited series comic book adaptation about the Battle of Thermopylae. OF COURSE it`s not historically accurate... sheesh!!
  19. Profile photo of astridhaze
    astridhaze Female 18-29
    738 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 1:55 pm
    2001: A Space Odyssey is SCIENCE FICTION; the book was written by Arthur C. Clarke (who just died, actually).

    Of course it`s inaccurate, it was written in 1968!!!

  20. Profile photo of jkmerc
    jkmerc Male 18-29
    30 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm
    this list was fairly good until i got to the last movie, 2001 was just a number and anyone watching the movie shouldn`t get stuck on it. How the hell is it inaccurate if it depicts something that has yet to happen??? and wait... its also a SCIFI MOVIE
  21. Profile photo of Dakkar
    Dakkar Male 18-29
    1256 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 2:01 pm
    Dramatic license is an amazing thing.

    When I want to learn history I`ll read one of my history books.

    When I want to be entertained, I`ll watch a movie.

    Just as long as people don`t take the movies for fact, then there`s no problem.

  22. Profile photo of Yoma4
    Yoma4 Female 13-17
    486 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 2:05 pm
    My history teacher has a twitch.
    Well actually, no he doesn`t.
    At all, seriously. :l
  23. Profile photo of shamille
    shamille Female 18-29
    831 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 2:06 pm
    did they seriously put "2001" on there?
  24. Profile photo of Doomlike
    Doomlike Male 13-17
    416 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 2:08 pm
    Eeerrr I guess a ``DUH!!!`` is in place with many of them.
  25. Profile photo of Paper_Crane
    Paper_Crane Female 18-29
    9 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 2:24 pm
    Uh 300 wasn`t SUPPOSED to be accurate, why is it on this was based off a graphic novel of the Spartans...
  26. Profile photo of Tonyjet
    Tonyjet Male 18-29
    3298 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 2:53 pm
    awww .. no speedy speedos with six pak abs???

    besides if i wanted to watch a historically correct movie.. i would go back to HS an i dont

    and i wana be entertain.. not bored to death with history movies

  27. Profile photo of josieflo
    josieflo Female 18-29
    145 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 3:02 pm
    they may not be accurate, but most of them are pretty good movies
  28. Profile photo of GH4ND1
    GH4ND1 Male 18-29
    78 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 3:16 pm
    the biggest problem i had with 300 is that at teh end of battle 1200 (or 800 can`t remember) thespians (as in the city Thespis not actors) also stayed behind to fight. I want those guys to get recognition b/c they just stayed b/c they respected the spartans so much and they couldn`t stand the thought of those brave men dying alone. but i guess 1500 doesn`t quite have the ring that 300 does, still it would be cool for someone to recognize their sacrifice as well,

    really if the SPARTANS knew they would die how do you think the Thespians felt

    10,000 BC is a piece of poo that would make any self-respecting man of history commit ritual suicide just for looking at a movie poster for it

    Gladiator really wasn`t too bad, but i don`t like movies that potray Marcus Aurelius as a victim of circumstance during his reign, the guy was a dick, smart, but a dick nonetheless

  29. Profile photo of Gunit1
    Gunit1 Female 13-17
    850 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 3:17 pm
    What, no "How We Came To America Movies"? That say the Native Americans ¢¾LOVED¢¾ John Smith cause he `ran fast and jumped high?`Mm, no. We came, we learned from them, we slaughtered the natives so we could have the land. YAY AMERICA! Oh, and can`t forget, we complained about terrorism when 9/11 happened even though America was FOUNDED on this terrorism. Woo-pee! Yay terrorism! And i`m only saying that cause I AM AMERICAN!
  30. Profile photo of GH4ND1
    GH4ND1 Male 18-29
    78 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 3:20 pm
    1st of Gunit1 let`s not turn this into one of THOSE discussions, we all know the indians were massacred essentially to the man but all we can do is try to never do stuff like that again. We regret the past but you can`t change it so all we can do is try to learn from it.

    secondly in my last post the word censor replaced cra p with poo but left dick? WTF!!, way to go springing for the top of the line censor software IAB.

  31. Profile photo of GoldenClock
    GoldenClock Male 18-29
    22 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 4:06 pm
    Actually, 2001 was very correct in many of its predictions. It predicted flat-screen TV`s, a computer that can beat a human at chess, etc.

    And also, it`s the most accurate major science fiction film I can think of, as it portrays space realistically (ships not having to use thrusters in space, as there`s no air resistance, no sound in space, the portrayals of weightlessness)

    They just put 2001 at the bottom to try and be funny, and maybe to irritate film buffs.

  32. Profile photo of Kay62442
    Kay62442 Female 13-17
    731 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 4:07 pm
    Ha! I knew leather speedos weren`t proper Spartan attire! *happy dance*
  33. Profile photo of narlycharlie
    narlycharlie Male 13-17
    130 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 4:40 pm
    Movie history is better than real history anyway....
  34. Profile photo of cmheiple
    cmheiple Male 18-29
    111 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 4:54 pm
    Three Mel Gibson movies... huh? Who`da thought
  35. Profile photo of aussieguy29
    aussieguy29 Male 18-29
    420 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 5:09 pm
    a bit harsh putting 2001 on there. hopefully it was meant as a joke. i think ice age should go on there. i`m pretty sure there werent talking mammoths and sloths back then.
  36. Profile photo of The_Frogg
    The_Frogg Male 18-29
    619 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 5:18 pm
    theyy forgot to put passion of the christ on there>_>
  37. Profile photo of Foob
    Foob Male 40-49
    382 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 5:26 pm
    Funny how they fail to mention the atrocity U-571.
    In which the US army singlehandedly nicked an enigma code breaker from the germans. That is, an occurence that took place some time before said army joined the WWII effort. Hm, propaganda anyone?
    and just for larks, a year later this came out.
    I wonder, as a reply to the previous years` toe-cringing fiasco?
    It`s to laugh.
  38. Profile photo of Jadesy
    Jadesy Female 18-29
    154 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 5:50 pm
    300....Historically inaccurate? You becha. Good thing it was based on a graphic novel and not actual history ;D
  39. Profile photo of BikerTeen
    BikerTeen Male 13-17
    2113 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 6:03 pm
    not bad
  40. Profile photo of NOFX14
    NOFX14 Male 18-29
    1141 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 6:26 pm
    300 had monsters and crap, obviously it was fake!
  41. Profile photo of farquaadhnch
    farquaadhnch Male 18-29
    1225 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 6:28 pm
    I thought 10,000 B.C., like 300, was based off a graphic novel. Am I wrong?
  42. Profile photo of manorrd
    manorrd Male 30-39
    2372 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 6:32 pm
    They forgot to add "Ghandi" to the list, which was packed full of historical inaccuracies.

    Get you history from books, not movies.

  43. Profile photo of drixishot
    drixishot Male 18-29
    369 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 6:46 pm
    sheeeeps i hope you`re just trying to be retarded.

    its in mayan, which is alive and kicking. get your poo straight before you make stupid statements.

  44. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3431 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 7:45 pm
    Sure, but L.O.T.R. was historically accurate and that`s all that matters.
  45. Profile photo of mushie_mush
    mushie_mush Female 18-29
    2249 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 8:05 pm
    heh heh gladiator is my history teacher`s favourite movie
  46. Profile photo of hornytoad666
    hornytoad666 Male 13-17
    15 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 8:15 pm
    The problem is that 2001: A Space Oddyssy was written over 30 years before it was supposed happen. In its place, they should put Starwars.
    Why? Because the words "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away" state the events of Starwars 1-6 occur before the year 1977. The technologies in the franchise were (and continue to be) non-existant in 1977, making it innacurate. Although the begining says "a galaxy far far away" you can clearly see in this picture of Endor

    that the outlines of its continents match up perfectly with the crevasses of the moon

    Conclusion: HUMANS ARE DISENDANTS OF EWOKS!!! (The creatures in the movies that look like us are simply shaved gorillas)

  47. Profile photo of manorrd
    manorrd Male 30-39
    2372 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 8:28 pm
    I have to agree with hornytoad666 in that you can`t really call 2001 historically inaccurate, since it FICTION.
  48. Profile photo of zoinks
    zoinks Male 13-17
    437 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 8:35 pm
    im disappointed walt Disney`s "pochahontus"(sp?) wasnt on there

  49. Profile photo of StoogegirlSi
    StoogegirlSi Female 18-29
    202 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 8:40 pm
    It`s rare when they get movies right. Being a historical buff myself (I almost majored in history, until I realized it was as pointless a major as philosophy), I`ve learned to just numb myself when I`m about to see a "historical" movie. Except for 10,000BC, that just needs to be burnt. Now. In a ritual bonfire. Apocalyptica, too, cause that insults my family`s ancestors, damnit. It`s what you have to do to be able to stand even the most well meaning movies.

    Haha, dude, I agree that Birth of a Nation should`ve been on there. Ah well, the author probably wanted to cater to a more, er, younger audience. Like 13.

  50. Profile photo of LazyMe484
    LazyMe484 Male 18-29
    10441 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 8:50 pm
    There are more historically inaccurate movies than this. But I gotta say, 300 belongs on it.
  51. Profile photo of phroedoux
    phroedoux Male 18-29
    363 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 9:18 pm
    What about Kingdom of Heaven, National Treasure, Lord of War, Forrest Gump, and Enemy at the Gates? Any of those I would put way before 2001. 2001 wasn`t a historical fiction, it was a sci-fi flick that even Arther C. Clarke said that none of that would happen for a hundred years or more. Clarke did accurately predict that we would get to the moon by the year 2000 in 1945 though.

    They missed a lot of the problems with both the Patriot and Braveheart. The battle of Stirling Bridge took place in Braveheart WITHOUT the bridge. That damn bridge collapsing was the only thing that allowed the scotts to win the battle.

  52. Profile photo of ladynerd
    ladynerd Female 18-29
    252 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 9:54 pm
    2001 should not have being on that list, 300 isnt exactly fair either as its a movie based on a graphic novel based on the battle so of course it isn`t accurate
  53. Profile photo of RehtaeH
    RehtaeH Female 18-29
    288 posts
    March 23, 2008 at 10:02 pm
    did anyone notice how many mel gibson movies were on that list? lol
  54. Profile photo of BigBonny
    BigBonny Male 18-29
    2216 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 12:13 am
    Can anyone remind me the movie where it was in reality British forces and people, but in the movie they made them all American instead? I think it was a submarine movie?
  55. Profile photo of trinah1
    trinah1 Female 18-29
    156 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 12:17 am
    I was like `300 better be here` before opening it. Glad to see it was, although still a very good movie.

    I don`t think we should be hating on 2001: Space Odyssey though. I mean, the book was written ages ago and the film was filmed quite a while ago. It was set in the future, not the past.

  56. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 3:43 am
    It`s a joke. 2001 is on there because it`s funny to see it on a list of historically-inaccurate movies.
  57. Profile photo of _Requiem_
    _Requiem_ Female 18-29
    469 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 3:47 am
    I don`t care if it wasn`t an accurate portrayal. Memoirs of a Geisha is right up there with Boondock Saints on my top movie list. :P
  58. Profile photo of Declan191919
    Declan191919 Male 13-17
    1275 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 4:17 am
    And here I was taking it all as fact.
  59. Profile photo of Declan191919
    Declan191919 Male 13-17
    1275 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 4:18 am
  60. Profile photo of Foob
    Foob Male 40-49
    382 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 5:12 am
    BigBonny, if you had bothered to read the posts before you, you`d know. Now you just seem a bit daft for asking.
  61. Profile photo of shiggin
    shiggin Female 13-17
    1470 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 7:43 am
    No one said these movies NEED to be real
    Its a movie, not history class
  62. Profile photo of Aintudied
    Aintudied Male 18-29
    14 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 7:45 am

  63. Profile photo of Tupper
    Tupper Male 30-39
    54 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 9:24 am
    Although a huge part of breaking the Enigma code was carried out by British Intelligence during the war, it was in fact the Poles, seven years before the war started who first managed to break the code.
    The British followed up their work and although they did capture most code books and machinery, the US and Canadians also captured codebooks from captured vessels. The US also managed by the end of the war to be as good as the British at cracking Enigma codes.

    Yes the film is historical junk, but the cracking of the Enigma codes was an Allied victory, albeit a largely British one.

  64. Profile photo of luckyse7en
    luckyse7en Male 13-17
    2397 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 9:42 am
    Fairly right.
  65. Profile photo of Hughlio
    Hughlio Male 18-29
    142 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 11:09 am
    2001 = science fiction. Science fiction = NOT REAL. NOT REAL = NOT HISTORICALLY INACCURATE!!!!
  66. Profile photo of LemonTarte
    LemonTarte Female 18-29
    1441 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 2:59 pm
    A lot of the ones on there were really nitpicky. Pochontas should have been on there though.
  67. Profile photo of ElGuillermo
    ElGuillermo Male 30-39
    31 posts
    March 24, 2008 at 3:42 pm
    Do you mean Indiana Jones didn`t recover the Arch of Alliance ? ... What ?... Indiana Jones doesn`t even exist ??? ... Damn. That makes two with Jesus Christ... How sad.
  68. Profile photo of Vimto
    Vimto Male 40-49
    2853 posts
    March 25, 2008 at 6:22 am
    Hmm, U-571 seems to be missing.

Leave a Reply