Historical Accuracy is for losers

This weekend's biggest release is Roland Emmerich's "historical" epic 10,000 B.C. and it's not getting too kind praise from critics, nearly all of them bashing it for it's historical inaccuracy. Really? That's what people are bashing a dumb action flick for, whether it got all the facts right? Is the movie critic industry just filled with failed geographers & anthropologists? Because historical accuracy doesn't mean jack squat to me unless I'm watching a documentary or reading a historical textbook. That's like bashing 300 for not being historically accurate when it was based on a loose comic book interpretation of historic events in the first place. It's a movie people, not a college course, lighten up! Of course, if the movie sucks on other fundamental levels, I'll revile it as much as the next cinephile, but given most of even the bad reviews praise the action & effects I think it'll be a fun dumb experience just like it's supposed to be.

Another movie based in loose historical accuracy opens this weekend with The Bank Job, your seemingly run-of-the-mill heist film with the big twist being that it is based on actual events. I'm admittedly a little tired of heist films in general, but I'm also a huge Jason Statham fan and this is actually a well-reviewed heist film so it will probably be a good way to kill some time on Saturday before a certain mega-title hits at midnight.

And yes, I have a rare weekend (in fact a 4-day weekend) off, so I will most definitely be grabbing my copy of Smash Bros. Brawl at midnight on Saturday and probably not sleeping for the next 48 hours. Assuming I can tear myself away at some point I will give some hands-on opinions and my friend code for the game on Sunday or Monday.


1 comment:

Pelechati said...

I hope you get some sleep buddy.