Quote Originally Posted by Tenebrous View Post
Kingdom of Heaven is actually quite accurate. The character Balien actually did exist, but was born in Holy Land, but this is likely due to Ridley Scott making a character so sympathetic, he wouldn't get in trouble for a "pro-crusader" movie, which is kind of a touchy subject these days. For the most part, the directors cut it otherwise pretty close to what happened, minus all the Muslim/Christians getting along thing. Reynald of Chatillion was very well portrayed and
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
His death is generally excepted to have happened exactly like that, due to the Muslim tradition that you cannot kill a captive you have offered hospitality


The only other glaring flaw is King Guy was more of a bumbling goof who wanted everyone to like him, then a villainous jerk. Also
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
Saladin didn't just let the people of Jerusalem leave.


Oh and
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
Although perhaps the cheesiest part of the film, the real Balien really did knight about 50 men at arms during the siege of Jerusalem, although I'm sure in a slightly less dramatic fashion, although likely for the same reasons



Ridley Scott seems to at least due his research, and I prefer a researched film maker making my movies to a scholar making movies, which would end up being 7 hours long getting in every little thing that happened, and go way over budget making everything perfectly authentic.

Did no one else find Gladiator accurate, minus the actual storyline? I mean Commedus really was nuts, and did fight in the arena. Once again you can pick apart things, but for the most part he seems to have done a decent job representing Rome at the time.

On the other hand, Robin Hood was not only totally historically innacurate, but also innacurate to the Robin Hood story. D-Day naval invasions of Britain, the defense against which is led by some peasant and a woman, and King Richard was just killed? totally innacurate on every end of the spectrum.