Waterloo, Tora! Tora! Tora!, Black Hawk Down, A Bridge Too Far, The Longest Day, Downfall, Midway (sorry for all the war films). Some films want to up the drama but others actually leave out some really wild stuff cause no one will believe it.
Michael Durant himself said in Jocko Willink's podcast that Blackhawk Down was pretty accurate. Another participant in that battle said the same thing. Let me look it up.
Black Hawk Down has been one that's been on my list to research. Perhaps it's time to take a closer look. It certainly has to be Ridley Scott's most accurate true story movie. It definitely wasn't Napoleon.
@@HistoryvsHollywoodOfficial don't even get me started with "Kingdom of Heaven" 😅 Jocko Podcast 312 is the one with Durant. Let me search for the other one.
I’m a history buff and I get really irritated when a move claims to be based on a true story but when I research the movie I find big portions of the movie is just made up. I think that producers of these movies should be forced to have a small dot in the upper left corner of the screen and when what’s being portrayed on the screen is historically accurate the little dot will be green and when it’s just made up for “artistic” purposes the little dot will be red.
Says something about the Hollywood hype machine that I never heard of the first movie, even tho it was directed by clint Eastwood. Now that I think about it, I dimly remember something about the guys portrayed in this movie meeting the press in Cannes during the film festival.
Crash (2004). It's entirely fictional, but anyone who has lived in Los Angeles for over a year and have lived elsewhere to know that their self-serving, insincere attitude _isn't_ normal to the rest of the planet, it might seem familiar to one's own experience, like deja vu. _"I, too, have needlessly and prejudiciously been accused of prejudice by a Los Angeles reactionary!"_ _"This social tension feels oddly familiar."_ You asked for accurate movies! 🤷 This one I found very accurate. 😂
One movie qualifies better for accuracy, I think, and it's very recent and you reviewed it--"Gran Turismo". To all the questions regarding historical accuracy, you answered "Yes"--and it was an excellent action movie besides. What often upgrades an historical movie is the dialogue they have to create to fill in the gaps, with their historicity being plausible but ultimately having to remain unknown. When done well, it's the greatest use of artistic license there is. But the vestiges of a line that can't be crossed remain, and must be honored. For instance, putting religious words in George Washington's mouth to which he held opinions to contrary (which has happened), is worse than fiction, it's a lie.
I'll have to check out Andersonville again, which I think was based largely on a diary, but in terms of Civil War movies, Gettysburg is hard to beat in terms of historical accuracy, despite a few relatively minor deviations from reality.
@@HistoryvsHollywoodOfficial The diary was from John Ransom, who was imprisoned at the camp and the raiders were based on the Andersonville raiders who beat and steal valuables from their fellow soldiers
Thank you for all you do. It is your work that led me to abandon 'Chernobyl' on Netflix. Though portions of the film are accurate, the fiction in the movie and fictionalization of the event that inspired it are not worth my time when it comes to what is portrayed as a documentary. If I want to watch fiction then that is what I will choose. I find it more than a little ironic that those who claim to abhor misinformation and disinformation traffic in it for fun and profit.
Eastwood told them they shouldn't take acting classes because it would look like they're acting. He wanted them to act naturally instead. However, the only way to do that would have been to somehow stage a fake hijacking and make them think it was happening to them again for real. The goal of trained actors is to make people think they're acting naturally, and even they can't always pull it off.
@@HistoryvsHollywoodOfficial I believe this “act natural” approach has failed. They had lines, they had to act. And when watching the film it becomes evident that those three dudes don't seem to be “acting naturally”, something that professional actors are trained to do....
Waterloo, Tora! Tora! Tora!, Black Hawk Down, A Bridge Too Far, The Longest Day, Downfall, Midway (sorry for all the war films). Some films want to up the drama but others actually leave out some really wild stuff cause no one will believe it.
Nice you should do more review on Movies outside of Nollywood too, like Hotel Rwanda, Hotel Mumbai, Half of a Yellow Sun etc
Michael Durant himself said in Jocko Willink's podcast that Blackhawk Down was pretty accurate.
Another participant in that battle said the same thing. Let me look it up.
Black Hawk Down has been one that's been on my list to research. Perhaps it's time to take a closer look. It certainly has to be Ridley Scott's most accurate true story movie. It definitely wasn't Napoleon.
@@HistoryvsHollywoodOfficial don't even get me started with "Kingdom of Heaven" 😅
Jocko Podcast 312 is the one with Durant. Let me search for the other one.
@@AlvaritoGT or 1492: Conquest of Paradise that was awful, though I do like Gladiator, that was pretty good
Jeff Struecker in Outkick RUclips channel is the other one calling the movie pretty accurate
One inaccurate moment I can think of in the movie was the Mogadishu mile. They didn't ran the whole time, mostly tactically walked.
Gallipoli (1981) I watched it recently and hope you can shed light on its accuracy.
the 1970 Waterloo movie is pretty accurate and very authentic with the thousands of extras they used.
It has to be more accurate than Ridley Scott's Napoleon. I'll add Waterloo to our watchlist to possibly research. Thanks.
I’m a history buff and I get really irritated when a move claims to be based on a true story but when I research the movie I find big portions of the movie is just made up. I think that producers of these movies should be forced to have a small dot in the upper left corner of the screen and when what’s being portrayed on the screen is historically accurate the little dot will be green and when it’s just made up for “artistic” purposes the little dot will be red.
Unfortunately, a lot of these movies would have a little red dot for the majority of the movie.
Says something about the Hollywood hype machine that I never heard of the first movie, even tho it was directed by clint Eastwood. Now that I think about it, I dimly remember something about the guys portrayed in this movie meeting the press in Cannes during the film festival.
Crash (2004). It's entirely fictional, but anyone who has lived in Los Angeles for over a year and have lived elsewhere to know that their self-serving, insincere attitude _isn't_ normal to the rest of the planet, it might seem familiar to one's own experience, like deja vu.
_"I, too, have needlessly and prejudiciously been accused of prejudice by a Los Angeles reactionary!"_
_"This social tension feels oddly familiar."_
You asked for accurate movies! 🤷 This one I found very accurate. 😂
One movie qualifies better for accuracy, I think, and it's very recent and you reviewed it--"Gran Turismo". To all the questions regarding historical accuracy, you answered "Yes"--and it was an excellent action movie besides. What often upgrades an historical movie is the dialogue they have to create to fill in the gaps, with their historicity being plausible but ultimately having to remain unknown. When done well, it's the greatest use of artistic license there is. But the vestiges of a line that can't be crossed remain, and must be honored. For instance, putting religious words in George Washington's mouth to which he held opinions to contrary (which has happened), is worse than fiction, it's a lie.
One movie I like to think of being accurate while also gripping is Andersonville 1996
I'll have to check out Andersonville again, which I think was based largely on a diary, but in terms of Civil War movies, Gettysburg is hard to beat in terms of historical accuracy, despite a few relatively minor deviations from reality.
@@HistoryvsHollywoodOfficial The diary was from John Ransom, who was imprisoned at the camp and the raiders were based on the Andersonville raiders who beat and steal valuables from their fellow soldiers
Pepper Pig is the most historically accurate programme ever made . 👍
How about Waterloo and The Longest Day or Alexander. Oh ya, and Tora! Tora! Tora!
Another Clint movie ...Invictus was quite accurate...I am South African...and lived through those events depicted.
Thank you for all you do. It is your work that led me to abandon 'Chernobyl' on Netflix. Though portions of the film are accurate, the fiction in the movie and fictionalization of the event that inspired it are not worth my time when it comes to what is portrayed as a documentary. If I want to watch fiction then that is what I will choose. I find it more than a little ironic that those who claim to abhor misinformation and disinformation traffic in it for fun and profit.
2 Irish films ..... ESCAPE and THE GENERAL...
That's why the acting on this movie is so bad!!! I remember watching this and thinking "these actors sucks!!! Guess what they aren't actors!
Eastwood told them they shouldn't take acting classes because it would look like they're acting. He wanted them to act naturally instead. However, the only way to do that would have been to somehow stage a fake hijacking and make them think it was happening to them again for real. The goal of trained actors is to make people think they're acting naturally, and even they can't always pull it off.
@@HistoryvsHollywoodOfficial I believe this “act natural” approach has failed. They had lines, they had to act. And when watching the film it becomes evident that those three dudes don't seem to be “acting naturally”, something that professional actors are trained to do....
Great Movie!
Midway 2019 movie
I hadnt heard of this bud, but am going to watch it this afternoon.. love literally anything Clint does..🫡👍😊