[thierabess]

anyone seen this movie?
It's very good [thumbup] and I barely heard anything about it. Finally a movie that has some solid acting and is not about special effects but really the human side of things.

[seervezex]

It's an amazing film, if a bit historically inaccurate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2282194/?from=rss

[Jasonstawnosaa]

It's an amazing film, if a bit historically inaccurate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2282194/?from=rss

That's why they call it a film and not a documentary.

[boXGWf04]

That's why they call it a film and not a documentary.

No it's not. You can have historically accurate films and documentaries full of spin. [ban]

[seervezex]

That's why they call it a film and not a documentary.

Ironically so many documentaries are practically works of fiction these days, in the way they edit to an agenda to get a movie out of it.

That aside, I do know the difference between the two believe it or not, and I think it's obvious my point was that it's a shame that when they advertise a film as being a 'true story' that they alter some of the more distasteful elements to fulfil the want of the audience and not to serve as a testament of truth to the events they portray.

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a true story to be as accurate as possible. I still enjoyed the King's Speech immensely, despite it's inaccuracies however.

[boXGWf04]

As far as I'm aware the only real inaccuracies were the timescale of the speech therapy and a bit of playing down of the nazi connection.

Here is the original recording. Makes you realise how good Colin Farrell is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAhFW_auT20

[Jasonstawnosaa]

No it's not. You can have historically accurate films and documentaries full of spin. [ban]

LOL whatever. If a documentary has fiction it's not a documentary according to the meaning of the word. [ban]

Ironically so many documentaries are practically works of fiction these days, in the way they edit to an agenda to get a movie out of it.

That aside, I do know the difference between the two believe it or not, and I think it's obvious my point was that it's a shame that when they advertise a film as being a 'true story' that they alter some of the more distasteful elements to fulfil the want of the audience and not to serve as a testament of truth to the events they portray.

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting a true story to be as accurate as possible. I still enjoyed the King's Speech immensely, despite it's inaccuracies however.

As for the movie I was a tad surprised. It's also a bit weird that David Seidler is Jewish. I wonder how much of the original was scraped. I don't imagine much really as it would have made for a totally different film.

[xIuvyAuT]

Great film, really enjoyed it, worthy of all the awards and recognition it's getting.

[boXGWf04]

LOL whatever. If a documentary has fiction it's not a documentary according to the meaning of the word. [ban]

I said full of spin. Michael Moore's works are technically factually accurate while being full of spin. [ban][ban]

[Lolita Palmer]

Here is the original recording. Makes you realise how good Colin Farrell is...

What has that Irish idiot got to do with anything?

[FBtquXT8]

What has that Irish idiot got to do with anything?

I think he meant Firth, not Ferrall.

[boXGWf04]

I think he meant Firth, not Ferrall.

Yes, I did. Dunno why I got them confused.