[karnage]

The standards of Hollywood are driven by two imperatives, making a buck and promoting the leftist agenda. Historical accuracy carries no weight because almost no one in Hollywood has any understanding of or appreciation for history. There are individual exceptions - John Milius (Rome) comes to mind - but for the most part, forget it.

People must be quite wary when approaching a film “based on a true story.”

I have made several, with varying degrees of historical fidelity. The primary objective is to make the film work dramatically. Then I try not to make an absolute mockery of the facts - always mindful that what has been written down, and even sometimes what has been photographed - is not necessarily the whole story...

[Borges]

There's a running joke amongst film buffs that “based on a true story” is just an excuse to introduce the most garish incidents and coincidences into a narrative that would never be tolerated in a work of pure fiction under the pretense that ‘it really happened’. I still maintain that the historian and the dramatist work with different tools and should not be held to the same standard.