Top 10 Movie Biopics That Got It Wrong

“The Irishman” is based on Charles Brandt’s nonfiction book “I Heard You Paint Houses,” which chronicles the life of Frank Sheeran and his alleged connection to the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa. It seemingly, and finally, solves the mystery of Hoffa’s fate. Or does it? Unfortunately, there is no way to corroborate this story. In fact, numerous experts have come forward to debunk the claims made in the book, including a Harvard Law School professor named Jack Goldsmith and the case’s lead FBI investigator, Andrew Sluss. There is still no proof that Sheeran killed ANYONE, let alone Jimmy Hoffa. It certainly makes for a good legend, but a legend it may remain.

Seriously, why are there no good movies about Alexander the Great!? Director Oliver Stone has admitted that he ignored history for the purposes of dramatic storytelling, and as you can imagine, this has seriously ticked off some historians. There is just so much wrong with this movie that we don’t even know where to start. The depiction of the Persians is a big one, as they are portrayed as disorganized, turbaned, and speaking Arabic, when in reality none of that was true. So that’s problematic. Some characters are also much younger than they were in real life, key battles are mixed up or ignored entirely, and the movie largely ignored the admirable relationship between Alexander and Porus.

The story about one of history’s biggest shysters and conmen was made into a feel-good and empowering musical. We never thought we’d see the day. The movie ignores the fact that Tom Thumb was just five years old when he started touring under Barnum, not 22. And Jenny Lind quit because she was sick of Barnum’s relentless greed, not because he rejected her advances. And let’s not forget that the movie completely ignores the fact that Barnum exploited a blind and paralyzed slave for his own profit and amusement. Maybe the movie is a piece of metafiction and aimed to con us like Barnum conned his audiences! We think we cracked it, people…

Is this real life? Well, a lot is actually fantasy. This Freddie Mercury biopic contained a ton of historical inaccuracies that favored sentimentality over realism. Mercury was not the first Queen member to release a solo project, so that whole subplot was nonsense. There’s also the fact that Live Aid was not a reunion concert, and the filmmakers only made it so for dramatic and inspiring purposes. And that’s not to mention all the inaccuracies within Mercury’s life itself. These include falsifying his family background, displaying a problematic representation of Paul Prenter, and changing the timeline of Mercury’s HIV diagnosis.

This is a great title for a movie, as it tells you all you need to know about the story. It’s just too bad that the key problem at the center of this story – that is, the King overcoming a stammer to make an impassioned speech – is largely fictional. Yes, King George VI did have a slight stammer, and yes, he did seek the counsel of speech therapist Lionel Logue to fix it. However, King George and Logue began working together in 1926, and by 1927 (AKA 12 years before the declaration of war) King George was giving clear and resonant speeches. Not only that, but the characterization of Logue was largely fabricated, as he never swore or called King George “Bertie.”

Facebook is arguably one of the most important (and yes, one of the most destructive) inventions of the modern era, and the story of its inception deserves to be told. However, acclaimed screenwriter Aaron Sorkin admitted that he took some major creative liberties in relaying the story. Most of the criticisms aimed at the movie concern the cold and selfish characterization of Zuckerberg himself. By all accounts, Zuckerberg was a very nice and welcoming man, and he certainly didn’t start Facebook in a fit of vengeful rage following a breakup. Zuckerberg, co-founders Dustin Moskovitz and Eduardo Saverin, and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg all objected to the movie’s distorted facts and said that it had little basis in the boring reality.

Mathematician John Nash was a brilliant man with a brilliant story, and Russell Crowe brought said story to life with mesmerizing aplomb. It’s just… not entirely accurate. The screenplay was viciously roasted by critics and historians, many of whom noted the omission of Nash’s inappropriate sexual escapades, numerous affairs, raging classism, anti-Semitism, and neglectful abuse of his first wife and son. In short, it significantly toned down and streamlined a far more complex individual for misleading, feel-good purposes. It’s much like “The Greatest Showman” in that regard! The movie also completely ignores Reinhard Selten and John Harsanyi, two co-recipients who shared the Nobel Prize with Nash.

“Braveheart” is a classic, but let’s be honest, it’s a total mess when it comes to historical accuracy. Screenwriter Randall Wallace claims that he took inspiration from an epic 15th century poem, which many experts claim has little basis in reality. There’s the bungling of the timeline, as Scotland was invaded by England only one year prior to the rebellion. Isabella was also three years old and in an entirely different country during the Battle of Falkirk. There’s also the problematic representation of Wallace himself. He did not wear a kilt (as kilts did not exist at the time), he was not a mere commoner, he hung those who refused conscription, and oh yeah, he was not Braveheart! That moniker actually belonged to Robert the Bruce.

“Amadeus” is a superb and suitably epic biopic concerning the legendary Amadeus Mozart. But, like “Braveheart,” its fabled status doesn’t excuse its gross inaccuracies. We can talk all day about Mozart being right-handed, conducting in a modern style, and not enjoying the works of Handel. But the biggest offender is the central conflict between Mozart and Antonio Salieri. Despite a brief rivalry, the composers were actually good friends. They saw each other as colleagues, respected each other’s work, and even composed a solo cantata together. The idea that Salieri hated Mozart and planned his death was nothing but a rumor that later entered the public consciousness thanks to a play published in 1830 called “Mozart and Salieri.” The rest is history. Fake history.

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

“CBGB” (2013)

“Stonewall” (2015)


“Patch Adams” (1998)

“Bonnie and Clyde” (1967)


“The Blind Side” (2009)

“The Conqueror” is widely regarded as one of the worst films of all time. It stars John Wayne as Genghis Khan, the controversial founder of the malicious and devastating Mongol Empire. And yes, that is THE John Wayne. The egregious yellowface alone is enough to warrant the top spot on this list! However, the movie is also filled with other inaccuracies, including issues with the people, tribes, places, and costumes. Perhaps the biggest deviation (you know, aside from the yellowface) is that Genghis Khan kidnaps Bortai and forces her to love him, when in actuality Bortai was betrothed to Khan in an arranged marriage. They set out to make an epic, and they did. An epic failure.