"Top 10 worst inaccurate war movies" Topic

link

How did I forget about Flyboys? I like the movie but didn't you know every German flew a red triplane?

Inaccurate isn't always bad. Take Darling Lilli, for instance. Next to no historical accuracy, but still a fun show.

Flyboys was pretty terrible. I took a bunch of high school kids to see it when it came out. They all made fun of how inaccurate it was.

rmaker, another example is The Americanization of Emily, where a key plot element is that James Garner won't arrive at the D-Day embarkation port until after the ships have sailed (he's delighted). I knew the invasion had been postponed by 24 hours, but I also knew Hollywood frequently botched such details. So, I was pleasantly surprised to have Garner and Coburn wake up the next morning to a harbor full of ships.

Grelber

I saw a British movie made about Boudicca that was awful -- everything was wrong, from costumes to the culture to the use of magic (!!) by the Celts to stymie the Romans. It was more Dungeons & Dragons than history.

Hard to beat Battle of the Bulge made in the 60's – IIRC all the tanks, on either side were M60's.

Red Tails should not be on the that list, they lost 27 bombers, the average was over 40 plus bombers for a squadron so they did pretty damn good and were an exceptional squadron. This record was disputed not too long ago. To call it one of the top 10 most inaccurate is in itself inaccurate.

Enemy at the Gates? I loved that movie.

What a dreadful article, littered with grammatical errors and they can't even number the sections correctly and the commentary contains historical errors.

It was impossible for US citizens to serve in the RAF before 1941? really? They've obviously never heard of the Eagle Squadrons.

It is just clickbait.

I also love to watch Enemy at the Gates.
Michael.

The absolute worst is "Beach Red" with Rip Torn and Cornel Wilde from 1967. Probably few have heard of it, much less seen it, better left that way.

I thought Beach Red was ok. It was an anti-war war movie that didn´t give a if it was accurate or not, and some of the scenes were quite funny. But you are right, accurate it was not, but fun, yes.

Yes Martin I thought the same thing. However BoB was before the US had entered the war. It had something to do with the US being neutral and the repercussions if they were captured etc.. The majority of US that fought in the BoB claimed they were Canadian.

Never heard of Eagle Squadron until now, very interesting history, ww2 version of Lafayette Escadrille but sponsored by the British. Thanks for mentioning that,you learn some important history every day on here.

El Alamein with M-113's subbing in for British tanks.

There are a bunch of those cheapo 1960s movies with Lee van Cleef, Italian I think, with all manner of silliness, up to M113s being used by the Italian army in WWII.

> Hard to beat Battle of the Bulge made in the 60's – IIRC all the tanks, on either side were M60's.

That was fairly typical for the time – so I give it a pass on that. Even the excellent movie Patton used post war US equipment for the most part. The problem was the dumbing down on the Bulge script to make it "accessible".

Not to mention the 1990's type destroyers in "Pearl Harbor".

Piper909--are you thinking of the one with Alex Kingston,or this one?

youtu.be/jUb3PiCIZp0

"The Thin Red Line". I don't know why, but everything about that movie rubbed me the wrong way.

javelin98---me, too. I got tired of watching the jungle animal shots and the sun through the trees shots. Echhh!

Tuskegee Airmen was sooo much better than Red Tails. It wasn't so much the slightly exaggerated claims as it was the ridiculous action and the over the top evil Nazi pilot in Red Tails that made it so bad.

I don't know about this. One would have to have at least one movie dealing with the Indians and cavalry in the Old West. Some of those are horrible on many different levels.

Hard to beat Battle of the Bulge made in the 60's – IIRC all the tanks, on either side were M60's.

No, the US used M24's for Shermans.

"Saving Private Ryan" was 99% good, but the one thing that I disliked (which is common among war movies)… Everyone that got shot died. No one ever got wounded and removed from combat.

Oh, another one that I have some problems with… "Fury". First part of it was good, but the battle at the end was pretty bad.

Can 'Braveheart' count?

Braveheart, lol. Good one, how did that miss the cut? I love the following from it:

1. Highland Scots in kilts for the lowlanders
2. Blue Woad and painted faces in the 1200's???
3. The radical surprise wooden pikes they brought up as the English Knights charged.
4. The premise that Edward the Black Prince was sired by William Wallace.

I am sure there is way more to go on this movie alone.

Yes my mistake Red Tails was not a great film, Tuskegee Airmen was much better for sure.

4. The premise that Edward the Black Prince was sired by William Wallace.

It would have been the future Edward II. The Black Prince was Edward I's great-grandson and not born until 1330.

I stand corrected.

Another vote for Braveheart. It is easier to list the very few bits he got right rather than the errors. More fantasy than Lord of the Rings.

No it would have been Edward III. Edward II was in the movie.

I'll vote for Braveheart as worst historical movie (that lots of people have seen).

Old Battle of Bulge was at least fun with lots of actors chewing scenery. Robert Shaw uber alles! Did use some WWII equipment – M24 and halftracks – but grey M60s as King Tigers sticks in everyones minds. Filmed in 60s Spain that was awash in old WWII gear but not attempt to use. Same director as Longest Day but locales, epuip and script much worse. Hollywood still has script problems but locales and equip much improved (see Fury).

TomT

Annakin was ONE of the directors on Longest Day.

link

The Patriot…. nuff said. The Bulge movies.. well,, they did their best with what the script writers gave them. 3 from Hell was appalling.

The big problem I had with "Fury" is the notion that a German battalion could march, in formation, down a wide-open road in the late war period when Allied fighter-bombers were looking for targets of opportunity. Or maybe that is the one (micro) section of the front where the Germans had total air superiority.

Braveheart is historical bank but an enjoyable film.

"The Thin Red Line". I don't know why, but everything about that movie rubbed me the wrong way.

Starting with the cultural (mis)appropriation of the title!!!

I liked Thin Red Line, this had nothing to do with the British silly man. The movie was about demonstrating the "Thin Red Line" between sanity and insanity for men in high stress environments like warfare.

I love Braveheart, but damn is it one of the most terribly inaccurate movies I have ever seen.

1. The Woad died out in the 4th-5th centuries
2. "Surprise" wooden stakes? Pike was common place already
3. Battle of Sterling Bridge. Where's the bloody bridge?!?!
4. Cavalry at Falkirk was ran off, did not abandon Wallace.
5. Wallace was much more sophisticated than they lead on

This doesn't even begin to address the complexities of Edward I and Edward II. The costume is terrible for both sides as well. Everyone is depicted as wearing early 13th century kit with the same uniform. Highly inaccurate as armor would have been much more advanced and knights in their own livery.

Lastly, William Wallace was a 'okay' character to chose. I would contend a much better movie could be made out of Robert the Bruce and The Black Douglas. It has a much better storyline and both of those individuals did some pretty crazy stuff. There is quite a bit of detail (if you trust Barbour) surrounding their deeds and it all culminates to a bad ass crusader battle in Spain.

Someone needs to come along and do this man justice because Robert the Bruce was wronged with his portrayal in Braveheart.

I love the thin red line and cannot grasp why so many people on this site hate it so thoroughly. I think its a beautiful film. It is rated by imdb as one of the top 10 most underrated movies.

u571 gets my vote

Thin Red Line tested my sanity. How could I have paid to see that. I love the Japanese bunker on top of the grassy knoll. They'll never spot us here!

Anyway, Super,you can't blame the movie for the title--it's the novelist's "fault".

Not the first title "we" stole, either--how about "For Whom the Bell Tolls"?

Better not ask about that.

martin

I liked Thin Red Line, this had nothing to do with the British silly man. The movie was about demonstrating the "Thin Red Line" between sanity and insanity for men in high stress environments like warfare.

You need to do some background reading. The title was taken from the Kipling poem "Tommy" ("But it's 'thin red line of 'eroes' when the drum begins to roll"), which is a reference to the Highland Brigade at Balaklava.

And while we're at it let's add "Band of Brothers" to the list – though that was at least decent watching.

Actually the reference has nothing to do with Kipling poems or references to the Crimea war.

"Although the title may seem to refer to a line from Rudyard Kipling's poem "Tommy", from Barrack-Room Ballads, in which he calls foot soldiers "the thin red line of heroes", referring to the stand of the 93rd Regiment in the Battle of Balaclava of the Crimean War, it is in reality a quote from James Jones' book which reads "they discover the thin red line that divides the sane from the mad… and the living from the dead…" "

Yes, but Jones took HIS words from "Tommy" by Kipling. It's a military epigram, not a psychiatric one.

Sheeeeesh……

"they discover the thin red line that divides the sane from the mad… and the living from the dead…" a line from the book that the movie Thin Red Line is based on.

Clearly this have NOTHING to do with the British " thin Red Line." I think your argument smacks of Ethnocentrism.

The movie has everything to do with the impact of war on one's psychology during war. The movie is all about choices made in battle , and how different people react under pressure.

From another :

"Though Malick has inherited his title from Jones, who in turn derived it from an old Midwestern saying, "There's only a thin red line between the sane and the mad," his film is as much about the psychic fortifications men construct in order to survive war as it is about its psychic and moral consequences."

So clearly the title "Thin Red Line" hS zilch to do with Kipling.

According to that thoroughly reliable source Wikipedia, the term 'red line' originates in a boundary marked on a map in pencil to resolve a 1928 dispute between oil companies. Its use as a poetic device in other contexts would therefore be intended to convey an impression of two realms of experience that are held to be distinct and separate, but which are both in fact grounded in the same reality and liable to encroach one upon the other in the right – or wrong – conditions.

The term 'thin red line' originates, as stated in previous posts, with Kipling's literary allusion to the 93rd Highlanders at the Battle of Balaclava. Its poetic deployment would therefore carry a parallel but different meaning: the outmatched force holding against insurmountable odds.

I think it's probable that over time the two expressions have merged in the popular (and literary) consciousness, and that Jones subconsciously had both meanings in mind when he coined the title of his novel.

"outmatched force holding against insurmountable odds."

Are you two truly insane? The movie was not about the Marines holding our against as you claim insurmountable odds. This was about the US ARMY that were Finally reinforcing Guadalcanal, at that point it was the Japanese the were facing insurmountable odds at that point, leaving the island defenders to survive against insurmountable odds as you refer to. So are you two claiming the title THIN RED LINE was referring to the Japanese that were facing insurmountable odds???

The quotes I found were from reviewers of the movie. The veteran Jones, an American, wrote NOTHING about Kipling. It was an AMERICAN MAINE saying.

I respect the history of the British THIN RED LINE but the Guadalcanal campaign had NOTHING to do with a reference to the BRITISH most common reference of the Historical reference of the THIN RED LINE. Trust me I am an Anglophile when it comes to history coming from a country that can claim being the longest British Ally going back to the middle ages.

This film has ZERO to do with the English reference. I have two friends at the University Arts Department who majored in film studies and they said the film was Brilliant and was clearly as referenced about the thin red line between a brave insane action and an insane dead one in combat. The other outcome is to go truly insane like the officer who went insane and cowered in the Shell hole when the attack took place or the other that snapped after a successful attack. This film was after the Marines had held our at Guadalcanal. It has NOTHING to do with the Kipling Reference. Get over it.

Men I did not mean truly insane, I meant over the "THIN RED LINE?" No harm intended.

Trust me I was initially disappointed that the movie "Thin Red Line " was coming out and I expected a Napoleonic film and found our it was an American WW2 film. However I quite enjoyed it.

So when the movie subscript for this film in advertising ends up being: "Every man fights his own war." One can conclude after watching it that it has all to do about men's experiences in war not the Kipling Reference. Come on.