What are some most historically inaccurate movies?

: What is the most historically inaccurate movies?
I’am doing research for a college assignment and need to pick a historically incorrect movie to use as an example. I need to compare the movie to real historical sources and write an essay about them. I’am looking for any movie with a real main character( Real person in history), that is based on actual events. I’am not allowed to use movies like 300,braveheart, troy, jfk, so does anyone have any suggestions.

P.s. I’am thinking of doing either The patriot, Lawrence of Arabia, are these movies inaccurate?

Answers and Views:

Answer by THE GREAT BAMBINA
Rudy

Answer by Erin
I was surprised to learn that there are a lot of inaccuracies in The Patriot.

The film has been heavily criticized for its historical inaccuracies, including the invention or exaggeration of British atrocities. Most criticized was a scene depicting the torching of a church containing a town’s inhabitants, which was inspired by a Nazi war crime. Although not noticed by audiences and critics, historians also criticized the depiction of American-owned slaves being freed to serve in the Continental Army, when it was the British Army who first emancipated slaves that signed up for them.

There are also characters that are historically misplaced, such as the inclusion of British General Cornwallis at the final battle, which is based on the Battle of Cowpens. Colonel Benjamin Martin is likely a combination of Brig. Gen. Francis “Swamp Fox” Marion and Col. Daniel Morgan, whose strategy for the Battle of Cowpens Emmerich imitates in the climax. Col. William Tavington is based on General Sir Banastre “Bloody Banny” Tarleton, who was infamous for his legion’s cruel treatment of surrendering Americans at Waxhaws (mentioned by Gabriel when he returns to his father’s house), and Patrick Ferguson, who was killed at the Battle of Kings Mountain.

More: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0187393/trivia?tab=gf

Answer by jose
The Bridge on the River Kwai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai#Historical_parallels
The incidents portrayed in the film are mostly fictional, and though it depicts bad conditions and suffering caused by the building of the Burma Railway and its bridges, historically the conditions were much worse than depicted.[2] The real senior Allied officer at the bridge was British Lieutenant Colonel Philip Toosey. Some consider the film to be an insulting parody of Toosey.[3] On a BBC Timewatch programme, a former prisoner at the camp states that it is unlikely that a man like the fictional Nicholson could have risen to the rank of lieutenant colonel; and if he had, due to his collaboration he would have been “quietly eliminated” by the other prisoners. Julie Summers, in her book The Colonel of Tamarkan, writes that Pierre Boulle, who had been a prisoner of war in Thailand, created the fictional Nicholson character as an amalgam of his memories of collaborating French officers.[3] He strongly denied the claim that the book was anti-British, though many involved in the film itself (including Alec Guinness) felt otherwise.[4]
Toosey was very different from Nicholson and was certainly not a collaborator who felt obliged to work with the Japanese. Toosey in fact did as much to delay the building of the bridge as possible. Whereas Nicholson disapproves of acts of sabotage and other deliberate attempts to delay progress, Toosey encouraged this: termites were collected in large numbers to eat the wooden structures, and the concrete was badly mixed.[3][5]
Some of the characters in the film have the names of real people who were involved in the Burma Railway. Their roles and characters, however, are fictionalized. For example, a Sergeant-Major Risaburo Saito was in real life second in command at the camp. In the film, a Colonel Saito is camp commandant. In reality, Risaburo Saito was respected by his prisoners for being comparatively merciful and fair towards them; Toosey later defended him in his war crimes trial after the war, and the two became friends.
The destruction of the bridge as depicted in the film is entirely fictional. In fact, two bridges were built: a temporary wooden bridge and a permanent steel/concrete bridge a few months later. Both bridges were used for two years, until they were destroyed by Allied aerial bombing. The steel bridge was repaired and is still in use today.

Gladiator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_accuracy_of_Gladiator_(2000_film)
* While Commodus was indeed killed by a professional fighter, it was by a wrestler named Narcissus, not a gladiator.[4][5] His death did not occur in the Colosseum, but he was strangled while bathing. In the original Gladiator script the name of the main character was “Narcissus” not “Maximus”.[citation needed]
* The emperor indicates the fate of a gladiator by showing thumbs up or thumbs down, which is a common misconception, as there is no historical evidence for this interpretation. Some scholars[citation needed] contend that the actual sign was a thumb to the throat for death (meaning plant the sword in the downed gladiator’s neck), and thumb in fist (like a sheathed dagger) or thumbs down (to indicate sticking the swords point in the ground) if the gladiator was to live. The historical record repeatedly turned up the phrase “turning the thumb” without specifying exactly what that meant, which does allow for a great deal of leeway in how this was presented in the film.
.* Maximus only fights gladiators he does not know during the various games. This depiction is unusual as it was the normal practice outside of rare special events for gladiators to fight only those they trained with from their own school.
* Gladiatorial combats were not as violent as portrayed, nor were they forcibly fights to the death; indeed, deaths in the arena were relatively rare, and only if the loser were particularly bad the public would ask for his killing.
* Like today’s athletes, gladiators did product endorsements. Particularly successful gladiators (such as Maximus) would endorse goods in the arena before commencing a fight and have their names promoting products on the Roman equivalent of billboards.[6] Although originally included in the script, this practice was later rejected as not a fact the audience would believe.
* Many of the combats in the film are fought between gladiators that are different weights and sizes, however, similar to modern boxing bouts, gladiators were matched against opponents of the same size.
* Prior to the opening battle, a barbarian can be seen throwing a head towards the Roman lines and taunting. The words he shouts are probably meant to sound like modern German, even though the first recorded use of Old High German (the most archaic form) was by the Alemannic tribes of south west Germany during the 6th century, an area which had already been conquered by the Romans in the early 3rd century.

Answer by his dream girl
You should do Pocahontas. That Disney movie is 100% inaccurate!! Lol

Answer by instantlypoetic
American Gangster

Answer by Christian
Abraham Lincoln:vampire hunter

Answer by Tattoo
history of the world part 1

Answer by g g
u571 proper load of crap it was the british who broke the code