Bethberry
I want to give you more in response than my dismissive in the post above. You said that
Quote:
|
"two or three examples do not a hardfast rule make."
|
So allow me the opportunity to give you many more. These are four films which did rather well at the box office, and some of which also were critically praised as good films. Two of them even won Best Film of the year awards.
This is taken from a list The Top Ten Historically Inaccurate Films. The commentary is brief but to the point. There has been much written on other sites about the failure of these films to be faithful to thier main source material.
GLADIATOR
Emperor Commodus was not the sniveling sister-obsessed creep portrayed in the movie. A violent alcoholic, sure, but not so whiny. He ruled ably for over a decade rather than ineptly for a couple months. He also didn't kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, who actually died of chickenpox. And instead of being killed in the gladatorial arena, he was murdered in his bathtub.
(Box office success and award winner.)
300
Though this paean to ancient moral codes and modern physical training is based on the real Battle of Thermopylae, the film takes many stylistic liberties. The most obvious one being Persian king Xerxes was not an 8-foot-tall Cirque du Soleil reject. The Spartan council was made up of men over the age of 60, with no one as young as Theron (played by 37-year-old Dominic West). And the warriors of Sparta went into battle wearing bronze armor, not just leather Speedos.
(Big box office success.)
APOLCALYPTO
This one movie has given entire Anthropology departments migranes. Sure the Maya did have the odd human sacrifice but not to Kulkulkan, the Sun God, and only high-ranking captives taken in battle were killed. The conquistadors arriving at the end of the film made for unlikely saviors: an estimated 90% of indigenous American population was killed by smallpox from the infected Spanish pigs.
-( quality film, good reviews, mediocre box office however)
BRAVEHEART
Let's forget the fact that kilts weren't worn in Scotland until about 300 years after William Wallace's day and just do some simple math. According to the movie, Wallace's blue-eyed charm at the Battle of Falkirk was so overpowering, he seduced King Edward II's wife, Isabella of France, and the result of their affair was Edward III. But according to the history books, Isabella was three years old at the time of Falkirk, and Edward III was born seven years after Wallace died.
(Good box office, good reviews, award winner)
If this is not enough, I can provide much more.