5 Historical Movies That Got It Wrong
Movies about history aren’t always known for their historical accuracy, which isn’t really a problem unless you’re basing all your knowledge of Napoleon on Napoleon. Some are especially egregious in their departures from the historical record, however, and the tension between fact and fiction can make for a confusing experience. Here are five historical movies that got the facts wrong.
For similar articles, subscribe to our sister brand Movie Brief, brought to you by our resident film critic Michael Nordine. You’ll receive a weekly review and recommendation of a new movie, whether in theaters or available to stream, as well as a list of 25 must-see movies when you first sign up.
Braveheart
Braveheart was a massive success, grossing $200 million and winning four Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. If Most Historically Inaccurate Picture were a category, it would have won five. Mel Gibson’s 1995 epic about Scottish independence leader William Wallace is notorious for the many creative liberties it took, so much so that its Wikipedia article features an entire “historical inaccuracy” section with seven different subsections. For one thing, Wallace wasn’t born a poor farmer — he belonged to the lesser nobility — and the wife whose execution spurs his rebellion in the film might not have even existed.
John O’Farrell, author of An Utterly Impartial History of Britain, has cheekily observed that the film “couldn’t have been more off the mark if a plasticine dog was added to the cast and it was retitled William Wallace and Gromit.” Two other Gibson movies — The Patriot, in which he starred, and Apocalypto, which he directed — likewise have little historical basis.
You may also like
More from our network
JFK
Oliver Stone has courted acclaim and controversy in equal measure throughout his more than 50-year career, with 1991’s JFK embodying both. Essentially a feature-length conspiracy theory — albeit a highly compelling one — about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the political thriller was described by Stone himself as a “counter-myth” to the Warren Commission’s official findings.
Critic Michael Parenti called JFK “the only movie in film history that was attacked, six months before it was released, in just about every major broadcast and print outlet” — attacks that were due to concerns over how Stone would treat this highly sensitive subject. Indeed, Stone told The New York Times prior to the film’s release, “I've taken dramatic license. It is not a true story per se.” The phrase “back and to the left” (referring to the position of Kennedy’s head) sits alongside Braveheart’s “Freedom!” as one of the decade’s most iconic movie lines, proof that historical accuracy isn’t a requirement for cultural relevance.
Gladiator
Make no mistake: Ridley Scott knows his historical epics aren’t historically accurate and doesn’t care at all. He’s called on historians who take issue with movies such as Napoleon to “get a life” and even posed an important question: “Excuse me, mate, were you there?” His 2000 film Gladiator, the only Best Picture winner directed by the Alien and Blade Runner helmer, plays fast and loose with its subject matter, including reversing the meaning of the famous thumbs-down gesture in gladiator battles. In ancient Rome, that would have meant to let a fallen opponent live, not to kill them. The movie’s version is a bit more cinematically compelling, but certainly not historically accurate.
Pocahontas
No one watches an animated Disney movie for a history lesson, but the problems with 1995’s Pocahontas are so foundational that they bear special mention. This includes the fact that her real name was Amonute, others called her Matoaka, and Pocahontas was only a nickname, as well as her age when the 27-year-old John Smith entered her life: just 10 or 11. There’s also no evidence behind the idea that the Powhatan woman and English settler were romantically involved or that she saved his life. Take away those three factors and you basically don’t have a movie left. “Colors of the Wind” is still pretty catchy, though.
10,000 BC
Roland Emmerich has made some great action movies, most notably Independence Day. But the 2008 film 10,000 BC isn’t considered one of his best. Its glaring historical inaccuracies aren’t the main reason it was so poorly received, but they’re pretty egregious all the same. Nearly all of its major elements, from woolly mammoths and saber-toothed tigers to pyramids and written language, are off by several thousand years in either direction.
