Let's talk about Chinatown. The film is a very inaccurate fictional depiction of the machinations behind LA's water. It gets nearly everything wrong. Yet it seems to be a film that many people believe to be accurate.

That's the one time when Hollywood's manipulation of the truth worked out.

I think JFK is SO far from reality that it ends up working.

There were a couple areas he should have focused that have long been the most compelling; ie. the "agents" flashing badges and the fact Oswald waited until JFK passed and shot him going away instead of coming toward him. He should have shot while the target was getting bigger, not smaller. Instead he grasped at every straw and made up characters giving exposition (Donald Sutherland) for stuff that didn't happen or was different. There was a documentary which tore apart nearly everything but those two.

Forget it Mabuse, it's Chinatown.

I think JFK works because it pretty much throws a bunch of theories out there - some of it logical and some crazy and it mixes in fact, fiction and conspiracy. It asks the viewer to decide for themselves.

I'm not and Oliver Stone fan, but this really is an amazing piece of work.

Last I heard Frank Dux was teaching ninjitsu in Santa Cruz. All I know he got enough people to believe his bullshit and was able to make a movie. I give him props for that.

The only flaw in JFK is Kevin Costner's iffy accent for which the rest of the amazing cast more than make up with excellent performances, especially Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Oldman & Joe Pesci.

The Butler movie by Lee Daniels had quite a bit of embellishment.

His wife was no Jennifer Connelly, either.

Has any film which has alleged to be "based on a true story" not taken massive, massive liberties?

That said, apparently Niki Lauda quite liked Rush.

Yeah, Lauda had a nice "It's a shame James isn't still alive, I think he would have really liked it." comment too.

Last night on REELZ there was a documentary on Frank Lucas, the subject of American Gangster. The cops interviewed were lambasting the film for how much was made up. They also claimed that Lucas was taking credit both in the movie and in the book from which it was derived, for things that others had done.

Or The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. It didn't happen in Texas or involve chainsaws, but other than that, it's totally based on a true story!

On the subject of which, was it ever confirmed if the 4K remastered Blu-ray version had a downmix or the proper mono?

Yeah, there were a number of articles about that that I dug up when I finally watched the film earlier this year. The movie's cited source was an article about Lucas by Mark Jacobson for New York Magazine in which Jacobson takes Lucas's word for everything! It's a short article, too, so how'd they fill in the rest of it?

The inaccuracy is reasonable. Nobody wants to watch a movie about a self-centered jerk who abandons his mistress because she got pregnant.

Or a movie about a self-centered jerk who drives his lawnmower hundreds of miles because he's got no friends to help him out.

But even though both men were made much more sympathetic than they were in real life, I like both movies.

Where the hell did I mention The Straight Story?

I like The Straight Story, inaccurate or not, it is a well made film.
On the other hand A Beautiful Mind, inaccurate or not, is total garbage IMO.

You didn't mention The Straight Story. It was a similar example.

I'm posting while tired, and may not be as clear as usual.

That goes straight to my point. I bet if you look up the threads of each of these movies people raised hell because of the inaccuracies.

me too

Let's just talk about The Straight Story from now on. Great movie.

She started to look kind of nasty after Dark City. Actually, I thought she fucked herself up. Yuck.

She turned into a Skeletor.

After she had kids she went overkill the on the weight loss and never got quite right again.