Comments (10)

There is no material history behind it. It was everything a lie.

This movie looked kind of crappy, I think. I don't know though.

everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. i personally enjoyed the movie. so i said i did. and it's not like i'm sitting you down and making you watch it or something :P *shakes head*

>:(

I haven't seen the movie. Archimago did have a point though. The entire story, though passed off as truth, was made up. But the same could be said of some of the greatest stories ever told, so...

I concur with Demannu. The film industry has a terrible habit of bastardizing classic literature and historical events. I'm not implying they did that with this film in particular. I just think such has been the trend over the past few decades in the film industry.

Sad.

of course the story isn't historically accurate. what movie ever really is, that is meant to be really appealing to the masses? i mean, all the movies like that ('based off of a true story') are mostly if not completely made up. and if the movies aren't made to be appealing and interesting, then the producers and such do not make as much money, which is all they care about anyway. they don't care if the story's right. or even if there's any truth to it at all.

food for thought

more food for thought

I'm not bashing the film - I'm simply bashing the film industry's bad habit.

This movie wasn't even based on a true story. It was based on a lie someone passed off as a true story. Sort of like the Amityville Horror.

that's why i put both links. it's easy to get confused until you read both parts of the issue. i personally believe the research in the first link. but until one reads that, it is easy to believe that there was an element of truth to the second link.