Okay, let's see - historical fiction includes some things that are not historically accurate. Certain characters in "The Patriot" were composites of real people, some are just characters based loosely on real people, with slight name changes. Some characters were probably created out of thin air.
I can honestly tell you that I didn't imagine for a moment that every single thing I saw in "The Patriot" actually happened, but what is it, exactly, that bothered you so much?
There was a war. War is ugly. The people that really won, won. The people that really lost, lost. Are you mad because one particular Brit was made to look mean, or what?
Mel left Rick Rescolara, a transplanted Brit on the cover of the book, out of "We Were Soldiers". Maybe we can read something into that.
PLease refer to post 44.
I said this:
The only surprise in Britain was that Gibson did not blame us for killing Jesus. He seemingly blames us and distorts history in all his other films.
............................................................
You then took up an arguement in which I was criticised for being offended by a non-documentary film. Just because a film is fiction when it is based ona historical situation it will be held to account. If it stereotypes or purposely makes one side look worse because of the Director's personal leanings then it will be criticised.
Am I mad because one Brit looked bad?
No.
I am upset because Gibson constantly distorts the British in his films. Jut because you liked the Passion does not mean that all Gibson's other fimls are so good.