The Patriot is a historically accurate documentary.

Idk.

On another note, Last of The Mohicans is a really good story.

引用自 SirSeanicus：

The Patriot is a historically accurate documentary.

roflmao one comment beneath the Napoleon Austerlitz Battle Scene: "This makes The Patriot look like hardcore historic fact."

Passion of the Christ.

idiocracy

Actually I think Napoleon is way worse for several reasons.

Gladiator 2 is a completely fictional story in a settingin front of a historic backdrop, albeit being pretty inaccurate. And this setting is rather small scale.

Napoleon on the other hand depicts historical events, that dramatically shaped the whole European continent for decades, if not centuries with those events being very well documented,. And this movie gets almost everything wrong, from historical facts to the characterisation of Napoleon himself and especially the military tactics used.
It even goes so far as showing Napoleon firing and damaging the Pyramids in Giza, which is insane twice, because first of all Napoleon was an admirer of Egyptian culture and secondly because anyone, who has ever seen pictures of those pyramids is aware, that the top of those pyramids are still intact and have not been cropped off by cannon balls. It's like making a biopic of Frank Sinatra , where the Chrysler Building gets blown up. We all know, that it did not happen, because it's stll there...
Ridley Scott is such a strange director. He is capable of making some of the best movies of all time but sometimes he makes complete crap and openly states, that he doesn't give a ♥♥♥♥. Sometimes even within the same movie, like Kingdom of Heaven, where the theatrical release is bad but the directors cut is fantastic.
I do not get this man. At all.

引用自 MEGA MAN：

Napoleon or Gladiator 2? *trying not to laugh*

and why is it so funny when people comment about these movies failing to be historical accurate?

Why Gladiator 2? What about Gladiator 1. That the best movie of the series. Gladiator 2 sucks bad, fake and shaming of strong men. It is not remotely "historical" at all. Gladiator 1 is the closest historical movie about a military man became a slave to fight in the gladiator. The Emperor Commodus acting was on the mark in the Gladiator 1.

引用自 Glizzy McGuire：

The Emperor Nero acting was on the mark in the Gladiator 1.

Emperor Nero wasn't even in this movie. So much about your assessment of historical accuracy, if you even confuse Nero with Commodus. And Gladiator 1 is just as historically accurate as Gladiator 2. Which means: Not at all.

I mean Ridley Scott's whole response to people critizising historical accuracy in his movie was "you weren't there so you don't know if it happened" so that really shows how much he cares for history.
I got no issue with movies set in historical periods not being accurate and merely for entertainment but i believe there has to be atleast a minimum of accuracy and not portray completely stupid things. Meanwhile dude really showed Napoleon firing at the Pyramids of Egypt for literally no reason, ignoring he admired ancient Egypt so much that he even brought people to study it in his campaign.

引用自 Serazener：

I mean Ridley Scott's whole response to people critizising historical accuracy in his movie was "you weren't there so you don't know if it happened" so that really shows how much he cares for history.
I got no issue with movies set in historical periods not being accurate and merely for entertainment but i believe there has to be atleast a minimum of accuracy and not portray completely stupid things. Meanwhile dude really showed Napoleon firing at the Pyramids of Egypt for literally no reason, ignoring he admired ancient Egypt so much that he even brought people to study it in his campaign.

Yep. I think there is a difference between:

"I want to tell fictional story about a Roman Gladiator, using historcal figures and events as backdrop, which barely anybody knows about."

and

"I am doing a biopic about the life of one of the most famous people, who ever lived and whose life and wars are being actively studied to this very day even by laymen."

Even worse, Napoleon is almost a character assassination. This dude was anything but a saint but instead of the charismatic leader, which he absolutley was, he is portrayed as a whiney, pathetic ♥♥♥♥♥. Exemplified by the speach, which he gave to the Soldiers of the Fifth Regiment, where in reality he is quoted as saying: "Soldiers of the Fifth, do you recognise me? If there is any man among you who would kill his emperor, he may do so now", challennging the people sent to catch him like a badass.
In the movie version, he says this
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4L95kXmE-kA
He misses his troops, is tired and wants to go home, like he is past his bedtime.

What a piece of ♥♥♥♥ movie.

It also did not help, that 50 year old Joaqin Phoenix is supposed to portray him from 24 to 51 without the movie making any effort to make him look at the appropriate age. He looks 60 for the complete movie.
I like Phoenix a lot but he was severely miscast, misdirected and/or did not care.

引用自 Stingray_tm：

引用自 Glizzy McGuire：

The Emperor Nero acting was on the mark in the Gladiator 1.

Emperor Nero wasn't even in this movie. So much about your assessment of historical accuracy, if you even confuse Nero with Commodus. And Gladiator 1 is just as historically accurate as Gladiator 2. Which means: Not at all.

Ahh confused of which emperor, my mistake. Gladiator 1 movie is better, tbh.