Historical Movies

(Forgiveness asked in advance if there is a more appropriate forum for this.)

I wanted to see what people's picks were for 1) Best historical movie, and 2) worst historical movie. The criteria I'm looking for is how well or how poorly a movie actually stuck to verifiable facts and such... a "good portrayal of what we know of the events", as opposed to "good action/story/whatever" if it deviated from history. I'd like to exclude documentaries... just movies that claimed to portray real-history events, what was the best and what was the worst?

In my list of best would be: TORA! TORA! TORA! for portraying verifiable facts (as they were known at the time of production).

On the other end: Pearl Harbor; pure Hollywood.

are you asking for accuracy of the props as well? in that case, "Band of Brothers" (counted as a movie?) wins and "Patton" loses....

Best historical movie: Lawrence of Arabia

Worst historical movie: Troy

Of course, there are plenty of other good historical films, such as Das Boot, The Lion in Winter, Letters from Iwo Jima, Rob Roy, Conspiracy, etc., but I thought I'd single out LoA because it covers a very confusing period of history and does it extremely well.

The list of baddies could go on and on as well. Cleopatra was a real stinker, 300 was beyond silly, Saving Private Ryan is two great battle scenes held together with duct tape and a thin excuse for a story, and Death Race 2000 falsely claims that the #1 sport in America for the last eight years has been watching David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone kill people with tricked-out Volkswagen bugs. Which is clearly not the case.

I'm not sure which one would qualify as the "best", as to be honest, I'm not sure if *any* of the historical movies I've seen were that accurate. Of the ones I've watched, Elizabeth is probably the only one that comes even remotely close to something resembling what actually happened in real life.

EDIT: I take that back. I'd say Patton was pretty good overall (in terms of accuracy), even if some of the props were off.


As to the worst one, though, that's easy: 300.

Originally Posted by Martok

I'm not sure which one would qualify as the "best", as to be honest, I'm not sure if *any* of the historical movies I've seen were that accurate. Of the ones I've watched, Elizabeth is probably the only one that comes even remotely close to something resembling what actually happened in real life.

EDIT: I take that back. I'd say Patton was pretty good overall (in terms of accuracy), even if some of the props were off.


As to the worst one, though, that's easy: 300.

For what it's worth you all seem to have great good taste. Everything someone has named as a good historical movie is something I've heard many other people call the same, and everything someone called a bad movie, same deal.

And for 300... don't even get me started. I want to seriously strangle people who who love 300 and have never even bothered to see "The 300 Spartans." (Not that that movie was 100% historical, but it was still worlds better than a graphic novel version.)

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

And for 300... don't even get me started. I want to seriously strangle people who who love 300 and have never even bothered to see "The 300 Spartans." (Not that that movie was 100% historical, but it was still worlds better than a graphic novel version.)

Ahhh, finally I have come to meet a person that shares my views. Seemed like I was the only person who despised that video in the world (I am not quite sure if it even qualifies as a movie - I mean no story, no real plot, almost no dialog, just 117 straight minutes of senseless blood and gore). Despite this, everyone who I talked to, both online and in real life liked the movie. Adults, childern, adolescents. Kinda tell you something about today's people.

As a matter of fact, I quit watching TV or movies long time ago (in my sixth grade year). Only books and computer games for me now. I haven't watched TV since that time and the last movie I saw was eight months ago... (I watched the first 30 minutes of 300 just to see what it was)

But 300 was based on a graphical novel. Not the battle of Thermopolye or the 300 Spartans.

I actually liked the movie. Good effects and good camera angles and slow motion bits that made it FEEL like I was reading a cartoon to me. Bit like Sin City really.

I don't think it ever meant to represent what happened or real history.

Just entertainment really. Overtly Violent yes, but so are so many other movies these days.

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Ahhh, finally I have come to meet a person that shares my views. Seemed like I was the only person who despised that video in the world (I am not quite sure if it even qualifies as a movie - I mean no story, no real plot, almost no dialog, just 117 straight minutes of senseless blood and gore). Despite this, everyone who I talked to, both online and in real life liked the movie. Adults, childern, adolescents. Kinda tell you something about today's people.

As a matter of fact, I quit watching TV or movies long time ago (in my sixth grade year). Only books and computer games for me now. I haven't watched TV since that time and the last movie I saw was eight months ago... (I watched the first 30 minutes of 300 just to see what it was)

It was nothing but an overhyped testosterone infusion for suburban boychildren. Sorry to be so blunt. It was junk.

overhyped testosterone infusion for suburban boychildren

Ha ha nice. I am glad that are clear with your thoughts on this...

I think the HBO production of Rome got most facts right regarding costumes and settings. But regarding historical accuracy of events...
I also recommend "enemy at the gates" just for that opening scene, and "The Last Samurai" for portraying that era of modernizing in Japan even though both of those movie invented its own character for more entertainment to the plot.

As for the worst ill have join the bandwagon and say 300. Hated how they had to get monsters instead of proper Persian soldiers. But then again its based on graphic novel..

My favourite recent historical movie is 300. I liked it for its innovative and gorgeous cinematography, and for its accurate portrayal of ancient history.

I have not seen a movie that better encapsulates the ancient Greeks' love for heroism, for proto-fascism, and for sodomy. Wait, not the latter, I must be confused with this flick I saw late last night and

What is Thermopylae? It is a minor battle, the account of which can be related in five minutes, written on half a page.
Or, Thermopylae is a legend, a celebration of martial values, of Greek love for heroism, the epitome of Spartan civilization.

300 is the best, and most correct modern account of 'Thermopylae'. Of the latter Thermopylae, the real Thermopylae.

'Mongol' is quite something, too many gaps though, should have been a miniserie. But the battles, owwwwwww

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

My favourite recent historical movie is 300. I liked it for its innovative and gorgeous cinematography, and for its accurate portrayal of ancient history.

I have not seen a movie that better encapsulates the ancient Greeks' love for heroism, for proto-fascism, and for sodomy. Wait, not the latter, I must be confused with this flick I saw late last night and

What is Thermopylae? It is a minor battle, the account of which can be related in five minutes, written on half a page.
Or, Thermopylae is a legend, a celebration of martial values, of Greek love for heroism, the epitome of Spartan civilization.

300 is the best, and most correct modern account of 'Thermopylae'. Of the latter Thermopylae, the real Thermopylae.

Isn't there a saying about artists using lies to tell the truth?

Originally Posted by Beefy187

"The Last Samurai" for portraying that era of modernizing in Japan even though both of those movie invented its own character for more entertainment to the plot.

My beef (hehe pun) with "Last Samurai" was that if they wanted to do an all out, drag-out samurai film, they should have chosen an earlier time. But i suppose that would have given them less excuse to make the movie really all about some white guy who out samurai's the samurai. It's been pointed out many times that purporting that samurai were somehow hardcore retro's who used swords and bows INSTEAD of guns in the 1800's, when the samurai unification battles of the late 1500's and early 1600's had been almost entirely gun-fought, was really wildly off mark.

Originally Posted by El Diablo

But 300 was based on a graphical novel. Not the battle of Thermopolye or the 300 Spartans.

[...]

I don't think it ever meant to represent what happened or real history.

[...]

The problem, though, is that too many people think that it *does* represent real history (minus the monsters, of course). Not everyone, of course (thankfully) -- probably not even a majority -- but a distressingly large percentage of the people who saw 300 honestly seem to believe that the film was a fairly accurate representation of the not just the battle, but the overall time period & culture as well.

Originally Posted by Martok

The problem, though, is that too many people think that it *does* represent real history (minus the monsters, of course). Not everyone, of course (thankfully) -- probably not even a majority -- but a distressingly large percentage of the people who saw 300 honestly seem to believe that the film was a fairly accurate representation of the not just the battle, but the overall time period & culture as well.

A majority of people in general go into movies about any historical event almost tabula rasa and accept more or less what they see at face value. It's only the history buffs or the people who are a buff about that PARTICULAR time or event who will spot problems or compare it to other movies or dramatizations of the same events. The big majority don't know, don't care. That's why it's so irksome to me. I don't think you should have to be a history professor to make movies, no. But I don't see why if they INSIST on changing things to "sell more theater seats", why not just make a fictional story in the first place. As I've said there are thousands upon thousands of scripts being sat un, unread, unmade into movies. There's never really an excuse for doing a "history" movie and intentionally changing things to be more audience palatable to me.

Originally Posted by Martok

Not everyone, of course (thankfully) -- probably not even a majority -- but a distressingly large percentage of the people who saw 300 honestly seem to believe that the film was a fairly accurate representation of the not just the battle, but the overall time period & culture as well.

Well, it is kinda.

One of the best historical films for me, was the Ronald F Maxwell directed "Gettysburg". The characterisation was deeply involving - in that one really got to know and care about many of the protagonists as human beings, rather than military pieces - and the battle presented with appropriate awe and terror.

Oddly, I'd propose as one of the worst the prequel, "Gods and Generals" by the same director, which was so mind-blowingly dull and uninspired to the point where I was wishing by the second hour that aliens would fly in on an errand of mercy to force peace with Kirk and Kor so everyone could go home and hug.

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well, it is kinda.

No. I'm more worried about someone who would say that than I am about someone who says "eh, I know but it's entertainment."

I'll agree with BG about Gettysburg and Gods & Generals. Though technically, G&G was more historically authentic than Gettysburg, the story could not capture the story/character magic of the first film.

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

I'll agree with BG about Gettysburg and Gods & Generals. Though technically, G&G was more historically authentic than Gettysburg, the story could not capture the story/character magic of the first film.

And therein lies my point. Historical authenticity can often produce a dull drama. A great story usually has to manipulate the facts.

"I also recommend enemy at the gates" by Beefy187

That movie was incredibly screwed up historical accuracy. If the Russians had fought WWII the way that it was shown in the movie, we would have lost in a month.

EDIT: for some reason the quote didn't work so I had to do it the old-fashioned way

On my list of the best: All Quiet on the Western Front - Has to be one of the most powerful statements made about war. Seen through the eyes of young, idealistic German students so eager to fight for the Father Land and their encounters with war's brutal reality.

On my list of worst: The 300 - History by comic book. Not my cup of tea.

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

No. I'm more worried about someone who would say that than I am about someone who says "eh, I know but it's entertainment."

No, because? As far as I know there was no such thing as voting and a senate in Sparta but apart from that it gets most things right, blown up, but right.

The best: that serial "Shogun" that is in fact an adaptation of the novel of James Clavell. However, if you want to really understand the film, you have to read the book first. "Queen Margot" with Isabel Adjani was also a very, very good film (different from Duma's novel and quite brutal but I find it to be the more real version of XVIth century France).
I also find "The Patriot" and "Brave Heart" to be quite decent films. True, "Brave Heart" differs from the real history but I find it still good. The love story between the Queen and Wallace reeks of Hollywood but all in all, good. I also like most of the aspects of "Kingdom of Heaven".

Th worst: Troy with Brad Pitt. This is defiantely one of the owrst adaptation I've ever watched. The end was horrible. I can only comapre it with an adaptation of Count de Monte Cristo (it's not a historical one at all but this is defiantely the WORST adaptation on book I've everr watched).

Can Titanic fall under these two categories?

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

My beef (hehe pun) with "Last Samurai" was that if they wanted to do an all out, drag-out samurai film, they should have chosen an earlier time. But i suppose that would have given them less excuse to make the movie really all about some white guy who out samurai's the samurai. It's been pointed out many times that purporting that samurai were somehow hardcore retro's who used swords and bows INSTEAD of guns in the 1800's, when the samurai unification battles of the late 1500's and early 1600's had been almost entirely gun-fought, was really wildly off mark.

But comeon... it was a good movie.. even from a japanese guy like me (except the part that Tom Cruise became like the best Samurai after doing like few months of training)

Ok maybe its just that I never done Japanese history

As for enemy at the gates... Oh the Russian had lots of people.. Fact that Russian had the most amount of casualty in WWII shows that. As for the reasoning of their victory, its not really the achievement of early soviet army but more of heroic achievement of general 'winter' and Hitlers stupidity. Or that Germans were incredibly outnumbered.

Originally Posted by Beefy187

But comeon... it was a good movie.. even from a japanese guy like me (except the part that Tom Cruise became like the best Samurai after doing like few months of training)

Ok maybe its just that I never done Japanese history

It doesn't annoy me so much that they just wanted to make an entertaining movie, they obviously did that. I just feel like, since there's obviously interest in samurai, even in a mainstream American audience, and there's so much history there, why make up a fake story making samurai look like they were 300 years behind the times? It was like watching a movie about hoplites in late Medieval Europe or something. Also, there were quite a few Europeans in Japan even in the 1500's, so it's not like they couldn't have slimed out some plot about white guy in Japanese world.

The best: that serial "Shogun" that is in fact an adaptation of the novel of James Clavell. However, if you want to really understand the film, you have to read the book first.

I actually give a lot of credit to Shogun even though it is basically a renaming and rearranging of the real events, and it blurs up the timeline a bit, because it DOES actually stick to nearly all factual events. The characters have simply been renamed and in some cases the events are switched around. (Examples being, the real life ISHIDA (called "Ishido" in Shogun) was the one to escape an assasination attempt by dressing as a woman, whereas his enemy Tokugawa ("Toranaga" in Shogun) was the one to do so in the story.) It also pushed back the timeline a bit on guns; whereas guns were in totally common use at the time the story began, the book and miniseries push it back a little and make it look like guns are first coming into play by the very end of the story. Again I give it a special berth because it did stick mostly to directly true events, simply rearranged for fiction, (no purple ninja man shooting lightning or supernatural Persian soldiers thrown in) and was well researched, and on top of that called itself fiction while being more historical than a lot of "history" movies.

In terms of historical accuracy, 300 is one of my favourites. It has taught me a lot about the battle of Thermopylae. Basically, the Spartans fought off the giant rhinos and the mumakil and the not-so-immortals, and looked set to win the battle. But then they were betrayed by Quazimodo and the Persians shot them all from behind. But then Leonidas nearly killed Xerxes when he threw a javelin at his face but he just missed. But then the Spartans thought it would be sensible to actually fight with their army but only after this battle happened so then they won.

However, Braveheart payed much less attention to history. It had the Battle of Stirling Bridge, but... with no brigde?! Also, rather than authentically displaying the culture of the Scots soldiers, the producers decided to take half the culture and clothing etc from about 500 years before the film, and the rest of it from 500 years after the film, and that way it would average out to be accurate. Scotland the Brave!