Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

[TancredTheNorman]

Centurion was a dissapointment from the point of view of historical accuracy, but I found something that makes Centurion seem perfect. I rank The Davinci Code series as equal to Spartacus Blood and Sand, which is very low.

Another low ranker in my opinion is Tristan and Isolde, not so much for historical accuracy (it is based on mythology, plate mail lorica segmentata and the pope being able to call on arcane magic would have been acceptable). I just think the version passed down from the dark ages is superior in every single conceivable way, it is the single best Arthurian Romance and it was butchered to the point where it really should have brought up new names, new settings and not pretended to be based on something Arthurian.

Robin Hood is a low ranker for the same reason, why do people feel the best of our myths need to desperately have their heads chopped off and get rewritten from scratch as nationalist thrillers with a lot of blood and guts?

Rant over, it just had to be said that all the great cherished myths and legends deserve attention with the historicals, change is ok and sometimes good it's only when the change is the Tristan/Robin Hood level that it really deserves mention here.

[Ludens]

Fair points, but the OT is to discuss the films that got it (mostly) right.

[SillySirius]

I just reread through the thread,even the parts i skipped before because everyone was talking about 300/DW and now realize Valhalla Rising was mentioned,and i was suprised to see nobody once mentioned Ken Burns the Civil War as a prime example of a great documentary.

I keep hoping PBS reshows it at some point.Either that or i could quit being cheap and buy it.

[Arjos]

Don't know if anybody mention it, but how about Henry V?
I find it quite accurate, giving the theatrical structure...

[Noble Wrath]

I learnt about Valhalla Rising from this thread. I can't really comment on its historical accuracy (or its lack of it) since my knowledge of this era is sketchy, although I seems that the poverty, the brutality of the warriors and the muddy photography are closer to the truth than the usual Vikings with horned helmets and huge war axes.

About its meaning, it is deliberately left blurry and undefined; I got the impression that the historical background was just coincidental, that the same themes could be explored in, say, a science fiction movie. At some points the movie becomes rather psychedelic and the landscapes are just breathtaking. I have come to a personal interpretation of the scenario: that One-Eye is a manifestation of Odin and the journey to America is actually a journey to hell. This fits with the end when the sole survivor is a boy. It seems compatible with Nordic eschatology: the Gods perish in the Ragnarok and the only survivors are a man and a woman (in the film One-Eye actually sacrifices himself so that the boy will live).
Other interpretations are possible: the Crusaders represent the will of man to control nature (Christianity here could be conceived as a product of the urbanised Roman Empire and in definite contrast to the more naturalistic Nordic Paganism). It is notable that the expedition leader planned to colonise against all odds the new land. In this context One-Eye and the muddy Indians can be seen as forces of nature, ferocious and uncontrollable.
Or one would argue that the journey brought into the light the inner motivations of each character: the silent (that is unsociable) One-Eye, the man who was consumed by his hatred, found true meaning in sacrifice for the others, a Pagan Jesus of sorts, where as the pious Crusaders when faced with insurmountable difficulties exhibited suspicion, treachery and lust for power.

In any case the movie left a deep impression on me and I would like to thank the guy who brought it up.

[Badass Buddha]

Don't know if anybody mention it, but how about Henry V?
I find it quite accurate, giving the theatrical structure...

The thing about Henry V (both versions) is that while they are true to the play and have good technical accuracy (but for a couple glaring flaws), as Tancred the Norman pointed out earlier, it's overly idealized and sanitized, detracting from its historical accuracy.

[Arjos]

I know, but I think that an objective movie will be appreciated by a small community, so it won't be produced by anyone (unfortunately)...

[runes]

reviewed the thread and i can't believe all the praise for saving private ryan.
ugh
i'm not going to start typing up all the inaccuracies with that film, but let me just say that they are GLARING and NUMEROUS. right down from typical hollywood fantasy endings with tiger tanks to the mindnumbingly poor tactical choices (why they couldn't just write a better plot defies me) and the general poor performance of hardened german soldiers.... who knows. good flick though, if pretty dated by now. wtf beach were they supposed to be landing at? ugh, so bothersome.

but anyway.