ITT Worst films based on history

This one always fucking annoyed me. Rafe couldn't fight with the British that was violating neutrality

especially considering the actual british commander went to great lengths to sabotage the project

what's bad about it?

>jap army needs westerners to show them how to use guns
>in reality japs have been using guns since the 1500s

>D-DA HALLOCOST NEVAH HAPPUND

Hahaha yup

I'd be so annoyed if that was how my story was told, the British commander in the film was made to look like such a cuck

Excluding things like 300 that were intentionally anachronistic/dramatized,.this may be the most factually inaccurate film about an actual historical event ever made.

That's why I hate nobody knows this masterpiece
youtu.be/-n1pKsGqrqQ

I never said it didn't happen. I said that Spielberg created a work of fiction around it.

>Rafe couldn't fight with the British that was violating neutrality

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Squadrons

Ooh, that looks heavy. Let me help you.

Gibson is such an overrated hack and a historical illiterate. I mean most of his films deserve a place on this thread. The impregnation resulting in Edward III being born was just so pointlessly added and actually had someone quote it to me as an anecdote once claiming it was legit, when Edward III was born 7 years after Wallace was dead.

>in reality japs have been using guns since the 1500s

Those would've been limited to a number of trained specialists. The majority of recruits for the newly formed Imperial Japanese Army would have never handled firearms prior to being conscripted.

I stand corrected, I was uncertain should have googled prior.

the seed is strong

Nobody gonna mention this piece of shit?

I haven't seen this, will give it a looksie

It was so accurate showing American incompetence that they didn't liked it LMAO

Im still wondering who the hell are these people are. Some sort of proto early civilization?

It's okay. To be fair, Americans who joined the RAF usually had to LARP as Canadians to join.

based Mel, killing bong goons with a hatchet

the film makers are very clear that its a work of fiction not based on any specific events

The character he was based off was a rapist who hunted natives and married his cousin.

based Mel, killing bong retards with a claymore

What made The Patriot worst in your opinion?

The actual William Wallace was a bad ass knight, not some mere farmer. There was no need to change his story so drastically

Not OP but it's literal propaganda from start to end.

> belittled
how?

> The Bridge on the River Kwai
this is the current state of Veeky Forums

even more based Mel then, but bayonets to the throat of bong thugs is still the best

based Mel is too chad to be some unwashed knight, that's for bong retards

This Confederate circlejerk

is there a single more historically accurate scene than this?

Shittonne of inaccuracies, I understand complete character misrepresentations in films I guess but I think the fire in the church scene is the worst. It never happened, the propaganda value of an atrocity like that would have been enormous so it never would have happened. Complete bullshit.

So is pretty much everything in America media. Hollywood or the news.

...

The officer was rewritten into a cuck. The whole thing became a whimsical farce of the scallywag POWs trying to get one over on those darstedly Japanese. Japanese treatment of POWs was fucking horrific. Stuff of nightmares. Completely downplayed the suffering these guys went through and the fact they resisted the Japs on every turn.

the film that single handedly killed rising public interest in the civil war

I don’t think it was supposed to be historically accurate. Kind of like 300

the slave galley scenes in Ben Hur

based Mel took care of that bong faggot in the end though, just like he vowed

...

That is an overused defence. 300 was over the top and cartoonish, never meant to be taken that seriously. This does make an attempt to portray serious history and bases the characters on real people but completely lies about everything around it. Especially the slavery aspect, Mel's character kept slaves raped the females and had several try and flee to join the British he wasn't some benevolent non-racist as they tried to portray

Except barely anyone saw it.

Probably unfair bringing full on propaganda films into this, there's a lot of examples there

I go out of my way to boycott this film any time one of my fool friends want to watch it.

You know, if that Cornwallis retard had worried more about his command than his fucking great danes, based Mel might not have cleaned his clock so often

I recognise it is ridiculously inaccurate but I fucking love that film and I'm English.

Seems like at least 50% of the dislike of the movie is because it was pro-confederacy.

Idk. To me it seemed clear that the movie was basically a story-time, folk tale sort of obvious propaganda piece that reinforces what we’d learned about the Americans revolution in school.

Yeah I feel that. I'm American and I'm annoyed by it, some fucking Aussie using bullshit to pull at the patriotic heartstrings seems perverted.

It takes itself too seriously to be appreciated as obvious propaganda, and it is wildly inaccurate so having any kind of role in reinforcement of actual knowledge is completely wrong. Its a part of history people take very seriously so lying about it for cheap emotional pull is fucking scummy.

it was also pro-boredom

Gibson sucks

Based off of the criticisms, it seems like Gods and Generals was basically an inverse of the majority of other Civil Ware movies.
One critic complains about the movie showing some slaves being happy. Realistically speaking, it’s possible that there were happy slaves. Not all slaves in America were treated harshly.

>calls his friends fools
>disagrees when they all agree on something
you sound like a rip-roaring good time there user

Yeah, it was actually an accurate representation of the people and times, if not the events. Despicable scum at every turn, including the jocks themselves. Treachery and brutality abounding. Longshanks just doing what a normal gangsta do in that era, and who could blame him? Based Mel ran into an even more based Lord Executioner. Fairly accurate, despite the fluff.

>lying about it for cheap emotional pull is fucking scummy
Yeah, that describes Hollywood to a T

being a slave is not ideal

It's filmed as if it were Shakespearean theater, which unfortunately doesn't translate well into film. The movie was also originally supposed to be a miniseries with the Battle of Antietam covered in its entirety, the final product was a fraction of the content that was originally intended.

yeah and they adapted all the boring parts of the book to make it Stonewall Jackson: the movie

People can be happy with things that aren’t ideal.

not with slavery

would you be happy being a slave?

But I like this scene. It's kinda arousing.
youtube.com/watch?v=ax7wcShvrus

I’d rather be a slave in some antebellum states in America than a slave in Africa, which they were. Being a slave, especially a house slave, would be comparatively great for them. Clothes, food, shelter.

the slave ship stuff in the new version was cool too, if entirely inaccurate since Romans only used professional oarsmen and it depicts a naval battle that never occured. Still cool though.
youtube.com/watch?v=DvA7IrNxM8o

A shame this movie did so poorly, I think it's extremely underrated and a vast improvement over the 1950's version.

A fraction of them (black US slaves that is) had a cool fate and were pretty happy.

if being a slave was so great then why wouldn't you want to be one?

Stonewall Jackson had a pretty interesting life desu. Only problem is that they only cover the last two years of his life as a general in the Confederate Army. 10-15 minutes of flashbacks showing Jackson's childhood, time at West Point, service in Mexico, and the final days of peace before the outbreak of war would've gone a long way.

ah yes, never mind the fact that by the time of the US civil war the slave trade had been outlawed for 4 decades, so they would have all been born into slavery

>source: my ass

Clearly Nordic Aryans who created the first civilization except Soros made sure they were represented as br*wnoids

Because not being a slave is better. That doesn’t mean the slaves couldn’t possibly be happy.
Still doesn’t change the fact that there could easily be happy slaves.

would you be happy if you were a slave?

I’m not comparable to an 18th-19th century slave. Especially since I wasn’t born into slavery.

>implying I'm not more or less a slave

Nannies, butlers, foremans etc in some houses had it good, a better life than most free workers and peasants.

so how can you know?

>implying I'm not more or less a slave
I am indeed implying that, what the hell makes you think you can compare your life to someone in chattel slavery?

I can make an educated guess.
For example, not all of the slaves that Harriet Tubman freed, wanted to run away/be freed. She then forced them to at gun point.
Many slaves were later freed by their masters. Would those masters have made the slaves’ lives awful?

>that dude on the prow spur at 4.30
Totally senseless and epic.

love this movie. i used to rent it all the time back when i went through a dixieboo phase
youtube.com/watch?v=Iw8YjVrRNRU

I don't compare, I just state the obvious, some of them were indeed happy (especially compared to what they avoided and they knew it)

its not obvious to me, explain how you think you are "more or less a slave"

The passion of the Christ

>oh look jesus is about to fall dramatically again
>yep he fell dramatically...again

métro, boulot, dodo
My life is planed 24/7 beyond my control, I was born free and I grew up slave, somehow.

Ain't that a bitch, dude. You should pull a McCandless.

>this fictional character who was maybe loosely based on a real guy or maybe not was a meanie head!

wtf I hate movies now

t. perfidious albion