Which are your Favorite Historical Movies? Which do you feel are the most accurate YET Entertaining? I Like Roots and Shaka Zulu Driving Ms Daisy had some nice sound bites Glory was pretty good too. 1776 was ok . . .the signing was a bit much I never liked Gone with the Wind Inherit the wind is a great coverage of the 'Darwin' trails Rocket River
Glory. no other is even close, in my opinon. i reserve the right to amend my opinion after seeing The Passion.
A Lion in Winter. War and Peace (full Russian version with English subtitles) Tora! Tora! Tora! / Midway
How do you define Historical movie exactly? As far as I know, Driving Ms. Daisy was based on a play, not a real incident. Gone With the Wind was a book of Southern propaganda. And the only "reality" that the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was based on was Ed Gein's penchant for making clothing from human skin. If we're talking about a movie based on real persons or events, I would name the following: Reversal of Fortune Raging Bull A Man for All Seasons
Lawrence of Arabia - not sure how accurate historically Patton - took some dramatic license but a fantastic movie We Were Soldiers/Black Hawk Down - highly accurate All the President's Men
I took a great seminar course years back called History on film/Film on History. This topic is endlessly interesting to me, but I'm having a hard time figuring out whether people are qualifying Historical Films as any film which is set at some time in the past, or whether they are films which attempt to depict, with various degrees of accuracy, significant actual events from history. My take on some of the submissions so far: Roots was perhaps an accurate reflection of a place and time in history, but it would take a lot to establish it as an historical record. Shaka Zulu, and the other film about the Zulu uprising against the British, entitled simply Zulu, are both similar, although the first is wider in scope, the second, tretelling only the defense of Rourke's Drift is probably more accurate, down to rebuilding the actual 'fort'. Driving Miss Daisy falls under the 'set at some time in the past', although i understand what you mena in that it included sound bites from that period. Glory is an excellent film AND an excellent historical film. Having read a book or two on Gould-Shaw ( at least in part as we're kin) I do have some issues with Broderick's portrayal, as Robert Gould-Shaw was much more decisive and forcefull, by all accounts, than the Hamletish character played by Bueller, and in that almost all the other characters in the film were composites or fictional, I suppose that detracts from it's accuracy, but in terms of what they did, not what the individuals doing it were actually like, it was dead on. A Lion In Winter is an excellent play and an excellent film. Harris' depiction of Henry II was interesting to say the least. Aside from that, however, and the general knowledge we have of the actions of his sons conspiring against him, in league with Eleanor of Aquitaine, including his avowed favorite John finally aligning with Richard and Phillip against him..and that Geoffrey was, by all accounts, ignored for no real reason...aside from that basic premise, the events which are dpeicted in this exceptional play/film are almost entirely supposition. Tora! Tora! Tora! works better as a historical film than as a film, IMO. The experiement of having both perspectives was worthy, although if you read behind the scenes accounts there were still attempts to maintain a black hat-white hat message usually intentionally absent from films seeking to be accurate. The Longest Day, quote simply the greatest cast ever assembled, was fairly accurate in terms of sense of scope, although highly sanitized. Burton's performance was, IMO, the best in the film. A Man For All Seasons is among my all time favorite films, so I am biased. Probably the greatest collection of speaking voices in one film ever ( Schofield, Wells, Shaw, etc.) Schofeild's performance is one of those few times when an actor portrays someone so fully, so absolutely and vividly that even other actors admit he 'owns' the role, like Brando in Strretcar, or Branagh in Henry V. As an historical film it is pretty true to reality. If you enjoy the film, read Utopia. More's won words make the events and the tragedy of his death all the more real and compelling. JFK was the best edited film I have ever seen. It is often inaccurately slammed for being historically innacurate, which is a bit harsh; It doesn't contain anything innacurate, the problem is that it doesn't include some aspects which might suggest alternative interpretations, and it presents some information in only one light, while there are alternative perspectives of substance. But considering the scope of what he was covering, the limitations of the medium, and the controversial aspect of the subject, it was an amazing film, and if not a direct recital of history, certainly a compelling historical argument. Saving Private Ryan...In some ways the best example of war on film ever, in some ways not. The first 20 minutes are the best thing ever put on film, IMO, in terms of being visceral, and giving the viewer the sense of actually being there. We all know the stories about WWII veteran hotlines, etc. On a personal note, I had 3 great uncles who fought in D_Day, and despite my interest in the subject, I could never get them to talk about it...nor could anyone else. I never fully understood why, until I saw the 1st 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan. To be honest, I cried when I first saw it, and I have over this film more than once. As military history is sort of my field, there are expressions which become so commonplace that you become desensitized and come to expect them; 'water running red with blood...blood and guts...blown to pieces...'etc. This film made them real for me again. That said, the first 20 minutes are accurate...of an isolated sphere of D_Day; the 2 concurrent Dog beaches of Omaha which had landed off course. It was not indicative of the overall experience, although close. And after the 1st 20 minutes it really regresses, as far as accuracy goes, and become more conjecture than recount. Fun to watch, but the history ends on the beaches. Lawrence of Arabia is in my top 2 or 3 all time favorite movies, so again, I am biased, but it's pretty accurate for a Hollywood epic. If you really enjoyed it, or if you like that part of the world, history,philosophy, or simply a great mind at work, read Seven Pillars of Wisdom by the man himself. Facinating. Patton...great movie, ok history, awesome performance. Very US oriented and slanted. All The President's Men; another of my all time favrites, and incredibly accurate, as far as we know, based as it was on Woodward's own words. Amazing, amazing film. Bridge on the River Kwai...again, I love Lean, and if you love Sir David, you love Sir Alec, which I do. More of an interesting psychological study than history lesson, IMO, but well wrth seeing. Apollo 13. Howard was screwed out of the Oscar, let alone a nomination, in that he recreated every single shot; none of it, as hard as it is to believe, was real footage. Excellent depiction, although I'm not really that versed in the space race. I'm not including my own simply because I wouldn't know where to end...this combines two of my three or four favorite things in the world; history and film...so it would be like opening the flood gates, and I doubt many of you would be that interested. I will say this, though...if you really want to see some excellent recreations if history, look to some smaller films; there are 1 or 2 great ones on the Spanish Civil War, for example...and look to some foreign films, which often stress realism a la euro films over the visual priorites of Hollywood movies.
