Four Off for Foolery

Rating: Null/10 (16 September 2006)

This was a given '10'. Easy. This movie is just too good. And then we discovered the screenwriter fudged history. For no good reason either.
I have a real issue with mendacity in this context. Boipics are supposed to be factual, historical, and the ones that want to make big money go out and convince you they're doing that - as this one.
And then you find out you've been lied to.
Foxx is so strong in this one - he was nominated and then got the Oscar for best lead actor. You know this was hard work for him. And you literally do not realise it is him playing a role. He's that convincing.
Everyone is very very good in this one, and the narrative succeeds in giving you an impartial look at the man, warts and all - and for that you love him and appreciate him more.
And then you're on your way here to rate this movie and give it a '10' and then someone comes in and says 'did you know they changed history and for no good reason'.
Mr Charles was to himself have read and approved the screenplay, so why did he let this pass? And Mr Mirren had this for 15 years before beginning on it - didn't he see this dramatic blooper as well?
If the real story is not exciting enough for a movie, then pick another topic. Four off for foolery.