People here claiming that ‘historical movies have always been inaccurate’ are missing the point. It’s not the presence of inaccuracies, its what those inaccuracies mean and why they exist in this particular movie.

Are you seeing a lot of recent films about the American Founding Fathers that I’m just missing? We had John Adams on HBO, but that was (a) 14 years ago; and (b) about one of the most anti-slavery Founding Fathers.

I’m not sure that’s quite right. Yes, every historical takes some liberties. But the Dahomey weren’t merely a nation that has some cultural elements we now find problematic. Slavery was central to who they were, in a way that put them at odds with other African and even European nations.

Of course movies about historical events need to follow Hollywood conventions and make our heroes saints so we root for them. But I think any movie about historical events which skips the bit about our heroes being slave-traders is going to draw at least a little commentary on that today. I don’t think a movie a movie…

As I recall, many people said “boo”, particularly about the film’s depiction of the Persians.

Untrue.

Many said it was racist, problematic, inaccurate, insulting, fascist, ableist to name a few “boos”. And also there was a call for boycott.

In total fairness, sure, Saving Private Ryan invents a US army platoon and a rescue mission. But it doesn’t, I dunno, try to make it seem like the Germans were heroically fighting to save France from the evil invading British and Americans.

There are going to be a lot fewer familiar faces doing game show parodies and wacky Joe Biden sketches on Saturday Night Live next year, with Kate McKinnon, Pete Davidson, Aidy Bryant, Kyle Mooney, Alex Moffat, Melissa Villaseñor, and Aristotle Athari all having already announced their departure, but hopefully one of…

If most of your story has to be fictionalized, maybe you should tell another story. And how could your film be edutainment if all the history you’re educating people about is made up?

Haven’t you heard? It lets you take photos in the dark!

HOLY SHIT why does Michelle Branch have to explain her perfectly understandable reaction?!?!

The fact this film exists is amazing. It’d be like if they made a movie about the civil war, which made the Confederates the heroes and painted them as the real abolitionists. How it’s not getting absolutely ripped to shreds for its sheer offensiveness is completely beyond me.

It’s like having a movie about the American Civil War where the Confederacy seceded from the US in order to end slavery.

I thought that ‘While he might not care about the African slave trade beyond scoring political points’ was a pretty clear acknowledgement of what you pointed out.

While he might not care about the African slave trade beyond scoring political points, he’s not wrong about the way reviews have been ignoring the actual history that this movie is drawing from for its story.

While a lot of historical and history-inspired stories focus on people doing laudable things who also did reprehensible things, this one is almost unique in that all of the laudable things were directly tied to the reprehensible things. Compared to 300, where a group of people from a brutal slaveowning society…

Unfortunately the history here is pretty bad. 1820s Dahomey were actually the baddies. King Ghezo usurped the throne from his brother with the help of the mentioned Portuguese slave traders; he also (contrary to what this review suggests is present in the film) did in fact sell his own people into slavery, and towards…

The movie itself sounds like it’s skillfully written, constructed and acted.