Name: 間違っていたトップ10の映画バイオコミック (Top 10 Movie Biopics That Got It Wrong)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T10:09:27.000Z
Duration: 12 min 11 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

Well, it's a good story, but it makes for a terrible history lesson.

And today we're counting down our picks for the top 10 least historically accurate biopics for this list.

We're looking at biopics that took enormous creative liberties with their historical subjects.

The discrepancies can come in the form of character changes and major dramatic deviations from the real story.

And obviously, a spoiler alert is now in effect.

If you like what you're hearing, be sure to check out the full song at the link below Number 10.

The Irishman is based on Charles Brands 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's seemingly and finally solves the mystery of office fate.

Unfortunately, there's 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 cases lead FBI investigator Andrew Slows.

There is still no proof that Sharon killed anyone, let alone Jimmy Hoffa.

It certainly makes for a good legend, but a legend.

I didn't cross Asia to steal this victory.

Seriously, Why are there no good movies about Alexander?

The great director Oliver Stone has admitted he ignored history for the purposes of dramatic storytelling.

And as you can imagine, this has seriously ticked off some historians.

There's just so much wrong with this movie that we don't even know where to start.

The depictions of the Persians is a big one, as they're portrayed as disorganized, turbaned and speaking Arabic when in reality none of that was true.

Some characters are also much younger than they were in real life key battles or mixed up or ignored entirely, and the movie largely ignored the admirable relationship between Alexander and Porous.

To this day, there is no accounting of how many died.

Number eight, the greatest showman wait Thief 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 Charles, right, Age 22.

The movie ignores the fact that Tom Thumb was just five years old when he started touring under Barnum and 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's a piece of metaphysics Shin and aimed to con us like Barnum conned his audiences.

We think we cracked it people into all our lives.

Yeah, Number seven Bohemian Rhapsody leads Signage is quick.

This Freddie Mercury biopic contained a ton of historical inaccuracies that favorite sentimentality over realism.

Mercury was not the first queen member to release a solo project, so that whole subplot was nonsense.

Break up the band 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 printer and changing the timeline of Mercury's HIV diagnosis.

The King's Speech 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 the story that is the king overcoming a stammer to make an impassioned speech is largely fictional.

Yes, King George the sixth did have a slight stammer.

And yes, he did seek the counsel of speech therapist Lionel Logue to fix it.

However, King George in Low began working together in 1926 and by 1927 a k.

12 years before the Declaration of War, King George was giving clear and resonant speech is not only that, but the characterization of Logue was largely fabricated as he never swore or called King George Birdy Birdy.

Number five, the social network and you know from the bottom of my heart that that won't be true.

Facebook is arguably one of the most important 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 and relaying the story.

The Internet's not written in pencil mark.

It's written in ink, and you published that Erica Albright is a bitch right before you made some ignorant crack about my family's name, bra size and then rated women based on their hotness.

Most of the criticisms aimed at the movie concerned the cold and selfish characterization of Zuckerberg himself.

By all accounts, sucker Berg was a very nice and welcoming man, and he certainly didn't start Facebook in a fit of vengeful rage.

Following a break up, Zuckerberg, cofounders Dustin Moskovitz and Edwardo Sabirin and Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg all objected to the movies, distorted facts and said that it had little bases in the boring reality you know, you really don't need a forensics team to get to the bottom of this.

If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you have invented Facebook number four.

Be a mathematical explanation for how bad your tires.

Mathematician John Nash was a brilliant man with a brilliant story, and Russell Crowe brought said story to life with mesmerizing aplomb.

The screenplay was viciously roasted by critics and historians, many of whom noted the omission of Nash is inappropriate sexual escapades, numerous affairs, raging classism, anti Semitism and neglectful abusive, his first wife and son.

In short, it's 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 Her Shaunie to co recipients who shared the Nobel Prize with Nash.

My question is taking me through the physical metaphysical, the delusional number three Braveheart Braveheart is a classic, but let's be honest.

It's a total mess when it comes to historical accuracy.

Screenwriter Randall Wallace claims 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.

I come as the king's servant and with his authority.

There's also the problematic representation of William Wallace himself.

He did not wear a kilt as kilts did not exist.

He hung those who refused conscription and oh, yeah, he was not Braveheart.