Replies

The historical backdrop is utterly fallacious as well. This is supposed to be "historical fiction" and in that genre it is essential that the facts are correct.

That's not essential for historical fiction, actually. Usually, in fact, the more accurately historical fiction hews to all the historic details, the more boring it is, since that straitjackets the story so much. There are some happy exceptions, of course, but in general "historical fiction" is usually a mix of historic facts/settings/people, and a healthy dose of "poetic license".

19 posted on 05/30/2006 3:06:02 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)

It's interesting how the people who start these schadenfreude threads can ignore the total box office for the film. $464,981,000 in two weekends is not shabby.

Mel Gibson's total take was $611,899,420.

56 posted on 05/30/2006 7:03:10 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")