Why should they be historical? They're movies. If you want history, watch the History Channel in my opinion.Don't like the man, and certainly would not trust any of his films as being honest history.
The problem I have is many folks cannot distinguish the difference. I would not doubt one bit that some folks believe there was a green gem on the ocean floor after the Titantic sank or there was a couple so deaply in love it changed the outcome of events at Perl Harbor.FinnMacCool said:Why should they be historical? They're movies. If you want history, watch the History Channel in my opinion.
And Spielberg is against you. The House is against the Senate , the Congress is against the President and the devil against us all. Everybody is against everybody these days. You didn't like ET or Saving Private Ryan any of those other movies? I thought Saving Private Ryan was historically accurate when it came to the bloodshed on the beaches. Nobody can deny his genuis when it comes to directing movies. Can't understand why you wouldn't like Speilberg and his admirable talents for directing. I was in a coffee shop the other day and saw where it talked about the movie. I bought the magazine and he had done research into the Munich hostage situation and Israel's revenge attacks afterwards in response. He had interviewed one of the guys on the Israeli death squads and according to the article, the guy was scarred for life of some the things he did. As well, Israel targetted people who had nothing to do with the hostage taking of Israeli atheletes at the Olympics.vauge said:Spielberg is against the Boy Scouts - I am against Spielberg.
Don't like the man, and certainly would not trust any of his films as being honest history.
I did pick up a magazine while in the store that had his face on the cover a couple of hours ago - about this movie. It did look interesting.