Top 10 Historically Inaccurate War Movies

“Enemy of the Gates” is a film about the infamous Battle of Stalingrad and the exploits of Russian sniper Vasily Zaitsev. While Zaitsev was a decorated sniper, most of his sniping missions in this film are fabricated or exaggerated. In addition to inaccuracies about specific battles, there are also smaller mistakes such as improper uniforms and equipment, some which weren’t available until after the fighting at Stalingrad. But the main problem, and it’s a big one, is that there’s no definitive proof that the epic standoff between Zaitsev and Ed Harris’ sniper character ever happened.

The Battle of the Bulge was a pivotal event in the European theater during WWII. The cinematic version of this crucial battle chooses instead to simplify and rearrange the timeline for entertainment purposes. Even the opening narration is off in terms of British and American troop positions and chain of command. The multitude of plot condensations and fictionalized elements even attracted the ire of US officials, including the former Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force. You know you’ve messed up when General (and former President) Dwight Eisenhower himself criticizes your film at almost every level. While the movie has a stellar cast, it doesn’t offer up any great insights about the key offensive.

The story of the Tuskegee airmen should be in history books right next to the more popular events of WWII. “Red Tails” attempts to bring that tale to life, but fails to nail the finer details of the group’s struggles. The narrative presents a generalized view of the squadron and even asserts false claims about their records. According to the movie, no bombers were lost during their operations in the war. This assertion, and other decisions including a lackluster examination of segregation, are Hollywood failings. Other reviewers took offense to the film’s lack of representation of African-American women, criticizing the movie for not delving further into the personal lives of the central characters.

The plot of this WWII film revolves around a US Navy operation to steal an Enigma machine from a German U-boat. No matter how entertaining it might be, “U-571” is basically a fantasy. History shows that British forces had already gone to the trouble of securing the prized device before America had even been attacked at Pearl Harbor. This glaring oversight stirred up controversy in Great Britain, prompting criticism from then-Prime Minister Tony Blair. The entire scheme in the movie, including the infiltration of a submarine, chooses to give the US all the credit. Considering this significant change, almost nothing from a plot level can be considered particularly historically accurate.

Contrary to the film’s title, Tom Cruise was not the final samurai in Japan. The movie tells a story about how Army Captain Nathan Algren went from training the Japanese army to joining the samurai. Algren is loosely based on European and American figures from the 19th century, but ultimately the central hero and his journey is fictionalized. Not only that, Cruise’s character prompted discussions about being an unnecessary white savior in another nation’s history. The nature of Meiji-era military or samurai needing help from a random US soldier washes over most of the real historical facts. Even if minor details or broad events are based in reality, “The Last Samurai” prompts more questions than real answers about the time period.

Anybody looking to “The Patriot” for a proper history lesson should, well, look elsewhere. The film’s general set-up of the American Revolution is accurate enough, but the details regarding British actions are largely made up. The main villain Colonel Tavington is loosely based on a real officer, but his fictionalized cruelty in the movie offended numerous historians who saw the film. The movie also sidesteps the issue of race in colonial America. African-American characters are presented with little mention of the real horrors of the 18th century. Considering that Mel Gibson’s character is partly based on an owner of enslaved people, this seems especially harmful to misrepresent.

Among the most classic WWII tales of the 1960s, “The Great Escape” has been a crowd-pleasing mainstay for decades. The main plot concerns a real breakout from a POW camp. Spearheaded by Royal Air Force leaders, the plan to dig a tunnel to freedom is also based in reality. But certain characters surrounding the action are made up or exaggerated for the film. Steve McQueen’s character Hilts also spends the final act on an adventure that didn’t happen. Many of the escapees had a much different experience than the movie shows, and only three got away in real life. Fifty men were actually ordered to be shot, on Hitler’s orders. These inaccuracies don’t make McQueen’s motorcycle sequences any less exciting, however.

Despite its epic length, “Alexander” doesn’t have enough time to properly explore the details of history. Filmmaker Oliver Stone consulted historians for his film, but ultimately chose to consolidate and embellish the story of the legendary leader, including relatively softening some of Alexander the Great’s destructive decisions. The ruler’s various conquests weren’t shown in full, leaving out his brutal tactics at places like Persepolis. Many other aspects of the controversial figure’s life were deleted or altered for the movie, including the Gordian Knot story. Ultimately, the changes to the timeline and Alexander’s character didn’t sit well with many experts.

Michael Bay’s filmography isn’t exactly known for its educational qualities, but “Pearl Harbor” stands as maybe his most notable case of playing with history. The director enjoys creating the spectacle so much that many historically accurate details about WWII simply fall by the wayside. His embellishments include outlandish plot points such as Ben Affleck’s American pilot becoming a member of the Royal Air Force. There are also plenty of inaccuracies regarding the technical aspects of the military equipment used in the film, as well as the actions of the Japanese pilots during the attack.This list could go on and on...

Before we unveil our top pick, here are a few dishonorable mentions.

John Woo Movie Fails to Honor the Navajo Code Talkers

Sensationalizes the Recovery of Stolen Art

Shifts Historical Facts and Undermines the Truth of WWI Aviation

Focuses More on Comedy Than Documenting the Gulf War’s Aftermath

Roland Emmerich Film Mixes Fantasy & Fact

Fans of this movie should look away now if they want to believe it’s historically accurate. The entertaining, Best Picture-winner tells a fictionalized story about William Wallace and medieval Scotland. The film upset historians, who have cited as problematic everything from the treatment of English-Scottish relations to the depiction of battles. Then there’s also the fact of ignoring key figures altogether, as well as fictionalized details such as the iconic blue face paint, which wasn’t exactly standard issue in the 13th century. Maybe the most egregious aspect of the entire film is that the main hero wasn’t known as “Braveheart” at all. Mel Gibson serves up a thrilling piece of filmmaking, but his take on the First War of Scottish Independence lacks historical accuracy.