Movies News Talk
Ever noticed how movie battle scenes are super epic but not quite how history books describe them? Turns out, Hollywood loves to exaggerate for the sake of drama, even if it means totally messing up the facts. We're talking about historical battle scenes, not just some made-up sci-fi stuff. Even if you don't know your history, you might be surprised by how often these Movies get it wrong!
Let's dive into some of the most-criticized movie battle scenes, where historical experts just shook their heads in disbelief. You know, the ones that have military enthusiasts yelling, "That's not how it went down!" at the screen.
Hold on to your kilt because the iconic Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart is about as historically accurate as a leprechaun driving a taxi. You see, no actual bridge was used in this battle! It was all open field, and Scottish warriors with blue face paint just charging at each other in chaotic glory. In real life, the Scots (led by Andrew Moray, not William Wallace) smartly used the narrow Stirling Bridge to their advantage against the English. Military experts are like, "They wouldn't just charge in like that! There had to be some discipline and planning!". The blue face paint thing? It was inspired by people living in Scotland 1000 years earlier, which is not exactly accurate for this period.
Indy, your love for historical accuracy seems to have gotten lost somewhere between 1942 and 1969. Okay, maybe we're stretching it, but this movie sure got the Siege of Syracuse a bit mixed up! Indy spots some boats, immediately shouting, "Roman triremes!", when in reality they'd have been using a different kind of ship, called a quinquereme. And the spear-like bolts those Romans launch? Doubtful those would have had the same range as in the movie. Let's not forget Archimedes, who's the main guy behind that cool artifact. History says those "military contraptions" were probably more awesome in stories than they really were.
There's a lot to unpack in this one! The Alamo's movie rendition is pretty darn far off from history. Apparently, the Mexican army didn't use heavy-duty artillery that would have blown up the Alamo in a few minutes. As for Davy Crockett's demise? Not sure about the exploding powder magazine deal. Apparently, the 2004 The Alamo movie has a different idea of what happened. The main takeaway is: these Movies have a real hard time sticking to the real facts!
American Sniper tells Chris Kyle's incredible story, but it wasn't entirely without some dramatic embellishments. This Iraq War veteran analyses a particular scene where Kyle shoots a driver of a car bomb to stop it. But this same veteran criticises the rest of the soldiers, for gathering together in the middle of the road during the chaos. "Anyone with an inkling of what a bomb might do would get out of there quickly," he points out.
Now Fast Five is known for crazy action, so it's a surprise to find some realism in a scene involving a really intense ambush. This urban warfare expert finds some logic in it - the ambush itself seems fitting. But here's where it goes downhill. Most characters stand out in the open, shooting away like they have a superpower. He's like, "Nope, that wouldn't work, they'd be swiss cheese!" Plus, everyone's supposed to run like heck for cover. You see, Dom, you're one tough guy but a movie can only do so much!
Everyone loves Clint Eastwood in this movie. However, this Western classic might be about as accurate as saying that all spaghetti tastes the same. A Civil War expert points out some issues. First off, those heavy guns wouldn't have made it across the desert in the middle of a battle. He even said it seemed more "medieval" with both sides charging into battle. Yeah, it's a great movie, but you won't be learning any real history!
Time for some explosions! This movie isn't shy about the over-the-top action. There's a tank vs helicopter showdown, and yeah, it's crazy awesome. Except for one thing. Experts pointed out, that tank shouldn't be able to be driven by one person like Rambo was. And the helicopter would've had him toast in no time. This tank chase is cool but more about the fun, not real warfare!
You're in the jungle with explorers trying to find a lost city, but then they break out in a Battle of the Somme! Seems pretty out of place. According to a military expert, the use of gas isn't realistic either, it would have been way too dangerous for the guys using it. And a gong warning? "Really?" the experts wondered, shaking their heads.
Oh Elizabeth Taylor, you’re Cleopatra. So grand. However, the ship combat seems pretty weak. Experts say the weapons are useless for an intense fight on an unsteady ship. Plus, those battering rams on the side of the ships are meant for secondary damage? Turns out, those rams were more likely there for spectacle! It's a little too epic for its own good. But we get it, you wanted it to be spectacular!
Sure, Gladiator's weapons and armor might look about right, but how they're actually used...not so much! A historian noted that flaming arrows were actually meant for sieges. Using them in a field battle doesn't make sense, as they are more for creating a barrier of fire rather than doing much real damage. Maximus riding a horse as the leader is probably a fantasy. General usually stayed with their foot soldiers and told them where to go. Yeah, it makes sense for a character story but not a true-to-life historical moment.
We’re just going to say it: Hollywood needs to put in some research time before they recreate those war movies. You’re not fooling anyone, the army is not amused!