Top 20 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies

If you’re looking for a movie that idolizes Freddie Mercury and his iconic band, then “Bohemian Rhapsody” is the movie for you. But if you want a realistic glimpse into Queen, then may we recommend a documentary or book? This movie was widely criticized for its shallowness, with many noticing only surface-level observations about the band. It’s also full of historical inaccuracies, with various events being compressed and even outright fictionalized. The formation of Queen, Freddie Mercury’s sickness, the management of the band, most of the Live Aid stuff - it’s all portrayed in an unrealistic or exaggerated manner. Heck, they even got the songs wrong, like “We Will Rock You” being written three years later than it actually was.

This saccharine comedy starring Robin Williams is well-liked by general audiences, becoming a box office hit. But critics despised it. With a DOA rating on Rotten Tomatoes, “Patch Adams” was called everything from “lowbrow” to “shameless” and “offensive.” The real Patch Adams would agree. He once told Roger Ebert that he “hate[s]” the movie, as it simplified his message to feel-good schmaltz and portrayed his work in a one-dimensional manner. While Adams has said kind things about Robin Williams and his performance, he can’t say the same for the movie or its inaccuracies. This includes largely fictionalized characters like Adams’ love interest played by Monica Potter.

There was indeed a German submarine called U-571, but that’s where the history lesson ends. Everything else is completely fabricated. An action war movie, “U-571” follows a group of undercover Americans who board the titular submarine to steal a piece of spyware. Perhaps the biggest affront to history is the very inclusion of Americans. In reality, the first naval Enigma machine was captured before the United States even entered World War II. Aside from that, the film is stuffed to the brim with technical mistakes and other historical inaccuracies - so much so that British MP Brian Jenkins called it an “affront to the memories of… British sailors.” The real U-571 wasn’t even involved in this story - it bears a closer resemblance to the capture of U-110.

It goes without saying, but you should never view a Roland Emmerich film as a historical document. As the title suggests, this film takes place around 10,000 BC and depicts the trials and tribulations of some mammoth hunters. While beautiful, the movie is a complete mess - especially in terms of historical accuracy. The anachronisms alone are stupefying and hard to believe, like the use of iron, the presence of corn in the Ural Mountains, and the building of the Great Pyramids. There are even geographical issues blending with anachronisms, like the long-extinct terror birds being in Eurasia. Suffice to say, Emmerich plays it very fast and loose when it comes to human history.

Not all historically inaccurate films are critically reviled. Take for instance “A Beautiful Mind,” a, well, beautiful movie that conjured up eight Oscar nominations and four wins, including Best Picture. It depicts the life of John Nash, a Nobel-winning mathematician who suffered from schizophrenia. While respectful to Nash, the movie’s depiction of his illness is rather inaccurate. There is also the whitewashing controversy, with New York native Jennifer Connelly playing Nash’s Central American wife. Aside from that, there are the usual “feel good” distortions typically seen in biopics, like the inclusion of a rousing climactic speech that never actually happened.

Look, no one is taking this animated film with sorcerers and talking bats as serious history. “Anastasia” is first and foremost a piece of family entertainment. But the story is sourced from the past, and it’s worth discussing. “Anastasia” takes place during the Russian Revolution and sees the real mystic Grigori Rasputin as an antagonist. But the story itself is completely made up. In fact, it’s based on an old Russian urban legend. The real Grand Duchess Anastasia died with the rest of her family on July 17, 1918. Later, a mentally ill woman named Anna Anderson claimed to be Anastasia, fueling rumors of her survival. These rumors are of course completely unfounded, but they certainly make for a great story!

Funny - “Argo” recounts the Canadian Caper, yet there are barely any Canadians in it! Ben Affleck plays Tony Mendez, a CIA agent who rescued six American diplomats from Iran. While Mendez played an important role in the caper, so did the Canadian government! The film has been criticized by historians for pushing aside that country’s involvement in favor of a pro-American telling. The CIA’s role in the caper is enormously glorified, as are the dangers that the team faces throughout the film. In reality, they encountered no notable resistance. Jimmy Carter, who was President at the time, credits “90%” of the operation to Canada and posits that Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor played a greater role than Mendez.

Like “Anastasia,” “300” is not meant to be taken seriously. It’s based on a comic book and features strong elements of fantasy. But its inaccuracies are hard to ignore. The movie recounts the Battle of Thermopylae, which was fought thousands of years ago between Ancient Greece and the Persian Empire. Of course, there are all the silly inaccuracies like battle rhinos and bare-chested Spartans doing MMA. There’s the morally idealized notion of Sparta and the movie’s false “heroes vs. villains” dichotomy. And of course, there weren’t just 300 soldiers, but thousands. Frank Miller, the author of the graphic novel, claims that these changes were intentional for the sake of fun and exciting storytelling, so we suppose we can’t be too mad!

We’ll give Mel Gibson credit - he can make a mean movie. “Apocalypto” is the director’s historical epic about the decline of Mayan civilization. The film was praised for its realism, featuring Indigenous Mexican actors and the use of the Yucatec Maya language. Still, there are more than a few problems. Some historians have argued that the movie mixes up Mayan and Aztec cultures, especially when it comes to the use of human sacrifice. There are also notable examples of time-warping, such as the different architectural styles of buildings. And finally, many historians argue that “Apocalypto” is racist for depicting the Mayans as a barbaric and violent culture while ignoring their greater, and more peaceful, accomplishments.

One look at this movie’s poster tells you all you need to know. Kirsten Dunst stares seductively into the camera while the text is displayed in a very garish and comic book-y pink. It’s very stylized for a period drama, and this heightened style sets the tone for the film itself. Director Sofia Coppola called her work an “interpretation” rather than “a lesson of history,” and for good reason. Modern bands like The Strokes appear on the soundtrack, and characters even wear Converse shoes. The film’s depiction of Marie Antoinette was viciously criticized, as were the myriad anachronisms and historical errors.

Back in the early 1930s, a Prohibition agent named Eliot Ness ran the Untouchables, a group of studious law enforcement officers who worked to bring down Al Capone. His work was immortalized in the 1957 autobiography of the same name, which was then adapted into this Brian De Palma classic. While it contains a great story, most of it is completely made up. All the juiciest details are fabricated for the movie, including the border raid and train station shootout. Furthermore, Al Capone and Eliot Ness never personally met, and Capone never antagonized Ness’ outfit with violence. The ending is also highly fictitious, as Frank Nitti was not killed by Ness - he took his own life twelve years after Capone was put away.

Oliver Stone is a very political filmmaker, and he does not agree with the Warren Commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy. This led to “JFK,” a thriller based in conspiracy theory. It loosely adapts the trial of Clay Shaw, which occurred in 1969. Shaw was charged with conspiring to assassinate the President but was quickly found not guilty. Stone’s movie received a lot of heat in the press, with many calling it insulting, offensive, and borderline libelous - especially for its framing of Lyndon B. Johnson as a conspirator. The President of the MPAA even called it “propaganda” and compared it to the Nazi film “Triumph of the Will.” So no, people were not happy with “JFK’s” wobbly depiction of history.

A controversial movie, “The Last Samurai” loosely depicts the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877, which saw powerless samurai revolting against the new Empire of Japan. Tom Cruise stars as Nathan Algren, a composite character based on numerous historical figures, including Jules Brunet and Philip Kearny. The movie has been viciously criticized for its depiction of history. One major contention is its portrayal of the samurai themselves. Their cause was not one of noble morality or justice, as is depicted in the film, but power. They were afraid of losing their position in the increasingly modernized Empire. There is also no record of an American Civil War veteran training the Japanese. In reality, Japan received help from Prussian and British military advisors.

While it’s certainly a cute little movie, there are many reasons to dislike “Shakespeare in Love.” Its involvement of producer Harvey Weinstein. Its infamous beating of “Saving Private Ryan” for Best Picture. And yes, its wildly inaccurate story. While a work of fiction, the movie still contains many historical figures, including Philip Henslowe, Ned Alleyn, and of course Shakespeare himself. The very plot of the film is fabricated, as Viola de Lesseps never existed and Shakespeare did not invent the story of “Romeo and Juliet.” There are also some major anachronisms, although these were intentional. For example, the Earl of Wessex title went extinct in the 11th century, and there were certainly no “tobacco plantations in America” in the 1590s.

We’ve discussed both Roland Emmerich and Mel Gibson on this list, and they combine forces for the fun but very flawed “The Patriot.” Emmerich directs and Gibson stars as Benjamin Martin, an American farmer who becomes a leader in the Revolutionary War. Like Nathan Algren, Benjamin is a composite character of many historical figures, including the “Fighting Gamecock” Thomas Sumter. While a ton of research went into the setting and production design, and while the movie adapts a few pieces of history, the story itself comes solely from the imagination of screenwriter Robert Rodat. One particular scene of a church burning earned a ton of criticism, as it has no basis in history and makes the British look like barbaric war criminals.

Being one of the greatest movies ever made does not excuse your historical inaccuracies! Granted, “Amadeus” was never meant to be taken as a serious piece of history. The story is fictional, having been inspired by an old Russian play by Alexander Pushkin. The plot comes from a false rumor that Amadeus Mozart and Antonio Salieri were bitter, and even mortal, enemies. The two were indeed professional rivals but the clash was not personal, and Salieri never conspired to kill Mozart. In fact, there is tons of evidence to suggest that Mozart and Salieri were friends or at least supporters of each other’s art. The concocted nature of the story was addressed by director Miloš Forman, who called his movie a “fantasia.”

The story of Alexander the Great demands a historical epic. Oliver Stone tried in 2004 with “Alexander,” but the film greatly underperformed. Not only did it bomb at the box office, but it received exceedingly harsh reviews for its pacing, writing, and historical inaccuracy. The movie’s Orientalist notions received particular criticism, with inaccurately organized and turbaned Persian soldiers. Stone also conflated or simplified many major battles and filled the movie with anachronisms. For example, the Persians should not be speaking Arabic, and the Lighthouse of Alexandria pops up years before it was built. The inaccuracies are so bad that a group of Greek lawyers threatened to sue Stone, but the case was eventually dropped.

Maybe Michael Bay wasn’t the director to helm a movie about Pearl Harbor. Virtually every aspect of the movie was criticized, leading to six Razzie nominations including Worst Director and Worst Picture. But it wasn’t just the filmmaking that drew collective ire. Historians have also lambasted the movie for its gross inaccuracies, as have veterans that survived the attack back in 1941. Some of the changes even border on the offensive, like the polio-stricken Roosevelt rising from his wheelchair and the Japanese bombers intentionally attacking a naval hospital. In fact, the movie generated debate about artistic license and to what extent it should be allowed when applied to history.

Disney was at the height of their Renaissance when they released “Pocahontas.” However, it failed to live up to its predecessors and received mixed reviews. Its depiction of history was particularly reviled. The film greatly “Disney-fies” the story of Pocahontas, John Smith, and the Virginia Company. Various aspects of Pocahontas herself are wrong. For example, her real name was Matoaka, not Pocahontas, and she was only a preteen when the Virginia Company arrived. Furthermore, there were never any romantic feelings between Matoaka and John Smith. As for Smith, he was said to be a disagreeable and unpleasant fellow, not a kind blonde Disney hunk. And as for the fate of Ratcliffe? Well, let’s just say that would never find its way into a family film.

We return to Mel Gibson one final time for “Braveheart,” which has long been the poster child for historically inaccurate movies. That didn’t stop the film from succeeding, of course - it grossed over $200 million and received five Oscars, including Best Director and Best Picture. The filmmaking is exquisite, the history absurd. It supposedly tells the story of Sir William Wallace and the First War of Scottish Independence, but there are so many inaccuracies that it could be deemed a work of fiction. Flawed character depictions, myths portrayed as fact, warped timelines, bad military work, enough anachronisms to write a book - it’s all here, and it’s all glaring. Gibson had the FREEEEDOOOM to diverge from history, and he certainly took advantage.