Top 1. 0 Movies You Won't Believe Are Based On True Stories“Based on a True Story” is generally a pretty dubious claim for a movie to make. Hollywood is notorious for taking things that actually happened and throwing in enough flashy stupidity to keep the lowest common denominator distracted from how overpriced movie tickets are. But sometimes movies actually do pull truth from reality, and it’s not always the movies you’d expect. Sometimes they’re not even very good movies! We’re talking about. Please enjoy this classic list from 2. Keep in mind we’re not actually recommending it (it’s one of the least safe- for- work things that exist, what with the sex, torture and gratuitous Being- A- Nazi), but yeah, it’s all there. And so are its sequels. The titular Ilsa is a Nazi “scientist” bent on proving that women can take more punishment than men. Her methods include a lot of torture and nudity — it’s basically the 1. Hostel, except even worse. Somehow. The Real Story. And yet, it’s based on fact: Ilsa Koch and Irma Grese were female concentration camp guards, going down in history as committing the most mythically horrifying personal atrocities of the Third Reich, which we won’t list here. Believe Quotes from BrainyQuote, an extensive collection of quotations by famous authors, celebrities, and newsmakers. Bull Durham (1988) Quotes on IMDb: Memorable quotes and exchanges from movies, TV series and more. Nowhere else can you see that, in the 9. Scotsman could play a Lithuanian, Alec Baldwin could be a badass, and movies about submarines weren’t terrible. Okay, okay, so Hunt is actually a pretty cool movie: Sean Connery plays the captain of a Russian submarine in charge of experimental technology who wants to defect to America to end what he sees as “a war without battles; only casualties.” However, the Americans think that he’s preparing to launch an attack, and only Alec Baldwin knows the truth because. In 1. 97. 5, Valery Sablin (the third ranking officer in the entire Soviet Naval Hierarchy) decided that the Soviet Union was failing but, instead of defecting like that cowardly Scotsman, he decided to sail his Frigate, the Storozhevoy, directly into the Baltic and broadcast revolutionary propaganda. That’s right: instead of running away, Officer Sablin was actually trying to start a revolution. Final Destination Based Its Opening Scene on a Real Plane Crash The Final Destination series of films exists in that weird niche where they make a ton of money (or at least enough to warrant sequels) but never manage to be any good. The ongoing premise is that the characters “cheat death” in one manner or another, and then spend the rest of the movie dealing with the fact that Death doesn’t like to be cheated. As far as “ideas for a good movie” go, this barely seems to qualify as an “idea,” but the producers have struck it rich five times over and we haven’t, so they obviously know something we don’t. The Real Story. Obviously, the actual premise has never happened, but the opening scene did: As Roger Ebert pointed out in his review, the plane crash from the first film (where death is initially cheated) is based on TWA Flight 8. US History. The movie’s version has a different flight number, but is headed to the same location, and crashes in a way that is almost identical. Ebert said he didn’t want to “belabor the point,” but we don’t feel like we’re “belaboring” anything by saying that if you base your schlocky murder- p- rn on an incident where real people died, the only thing worse than the “art” you think you’re creating is how the rest of the world has to put up with your inept, callous stupidity. First Dates Is (Coincidentally) A True Story The 2. Drew Barrymore as “Lucy” and Adam Sandler as “the same boring- ass schmuck he always plays” tells the story of a lovable, plucky veterinarian who falls in love with a lovable, quirky woman with a crippling psychiatric disability resulting from massive head trauma (as a side note, no Top. Tenz writer has ever been hired to write the blurb on the back of a DVD box). The head trauma is the gimmick for the film: Lucy’s short term memory is reset every time she goes to sleep, so Sandler has to woo her in a new way every day. Why doesn’t Sandler just woo her the same way each time, since he knows it’ll work and she won’t remember it the next day? We’d love to answer that but, unfortunately, this paragraph is about to end. The Real Story. Meet Michelle Philpots, a British woman who suffered two head injuries in 1. Like Lucy, Michelle has gotten married since her injuries, and has to be reminded of her marriage every morning by her husband, most often by being shown pictures of the event. Her attitude is either a major testament to the human spirit, or the British’s stubborn tendency to “carry on” in spite of pretty much anything: she says she enjoys the soap opera “Eastenders,” despite never having “any idea what’s going on.” And though she doesn’t remember getting married, she does remember the day she met her husband. Also, somewhat hilariously, that article about her seems to really badly misunderstood the plot of Groundhog Day. Men Behind the Sun Will Haunt Your Nightmares. As the first film to be given a “III” rating (the Hong Kong equivalent of NC- 1. Men Behind the Sun (or Black Sun: 7.
The leading information resource for the entertainment industry. Find industry contacts & talent representation. Manage your photos, credits, & more. It tells the story of “Unit 7. Japanese Unit during World War II that conducts experiments on Chinese and Soviet prisoners, in order to gauge their pain threshold and find out how enjoyable it is to undergo a vivisection without anesthesia (spoiler alert: not very). The Real Story. Unit 7. Their purpose was to develop a highly contagious version of the Bubonic Plague to use against the Chinese, because Japan really wanted to outdo the Nazis, we guess. In addition to the “cutting people open while they’re still alive” thing, Unit 7. Though again, we don’t actually recommend it. AND 4: Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Psycho Are Both Based on the Same Serial Killer. Though having little in commons stylistically, both Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Psycho have become hugely influential horror films. While the latter introduced the world to the twist ending, and what is almost universally regarded as the finest horror film score in history, the former proved that you don’t need to have plot and acting if you show women getting chased a lot by big dudes holding scary things. The Real Story. Both killers (and, to a lesser extent, Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs) were based on the Wisconsin murder Ed Gein. What’d Ed do to get a following in Hollywood? It’s hard to nail it down to any one thing, but we’re betting it was a combination of the fact that he was creepy- looking, had a weird obsession with his mentally imbalanced mother, and made a belt out of human nipples. There was also the mask made of human skin, the suit made of human skin, the lamp made of human skin. Rocky’s the story of an underdog who stays the underdog. It taught us that sometimes just getting a shot is enough, even if you don’t make it. The Real Story. In the 1. Chuck “The Bayonne Bleeder” Wepner and, if Rocky isn’t based on this guy, it’s one hell of a coincidence. Okay, fine, not everything’s the same: Bleeder* is from New Jersey instead of Philly, worked as a security guard instead of a butcher shop and, by his own account, never ice skated or wore turtlenecks. So what are the similarities? Everything else. Bleeder boxed a wrestler (like Rocky did in Rocky III), maintained a winning record, and even faced off against a black heavyweight champion: Muhammad Frickin’ Ali. Luckily, the Bleeder got his due: he sued Stallone in 1. Like hell we’re gonna call him “Wepner.”2. Jaws is a True Story, But Not The Way You Think. Most people know that the original “summer blockbuster” doesn’t try too hard to be realistic. No shark — not even the hyper- aggressive Bull Shark — will attack that frequently, or that mercilessly, or even get that big. Still, who cares about realism? Jaws is a badass movie with a fantastic soundtrack but, at the end of the day, this article is all about realism. The Real Story. Jaws is openly based on the 1. Jersey Shore Shark Attacks and, though the behavior of the shark has been exaggerated for effect, the reactions of the victims isn’t. After four people were killed by an unidentified shark, the people of New Jersey panicked and launched massive shark hunts in an attempt to eradicate the “man eater” and protect the tourism industry — an act the perfectly mirrors the plot of the film. Keep in mind, ichthyologists at the time thought that sharks in temperate climates were relatively harmless. One even claimed that it was “beyond the power of even the largest Carcharadon (Great White) to sever the leg of an adult man.”When this was proven untrue, the shock would’ve been similar to the appearance of the massive predator seen in the classic film. To Hell and Back Just Straight Up Happened. We’re going to skip the plot synopsis this time, because the plot synopsis is what happened for real. The story of Audie Murphy, an American soldier of World War I, To Hell and Back stars. Like Steve Rogers, Murphy was 5’5. Then he got malaria, because everyone knows war is boring if you don’t have a debilitating illness. There’s actually no shortage of crazy stories about this guy, but the most amazing has got to be the one that got him the Medal of Honor (those stories tend to be pretty badass). At the battle of Holtzwihr, Murphy’s unit was reduced down to 1. German line, so he did what any reasonable soldier would do: sent the remaining men back so he could hold the line by himself. After his M1 Carbine was empty, he climbed into a burning tank and held off an entire squad of German Infantry with a . Then he got shot in the leg. Then his phone line to the artillery was cut. Then he organized a counter attack. Somehow. So, why did he decide to take on an entire company of German infantry by himself, when almost anyone else would’ve wet themselves and run away crying? In his words: “They were killing my friends.”So it turns out that, by “reasonable soldier” we actually meant “crazy badass.” Cheers, dude. This I Believe . Over 1. The project is based on the popular 1. Edward R. Memorial Day. Memorial Day is a federal holiday in the United States for remembering the men and women who have died while in military service. To honor the memory of those who have served and sacrificed, click here to read a collection of essays that explore the importance of remembering those who have served their country. Shop on Amazon and Support This I Believe! This I Believe receives up to 1. Amazon through this link. So do all your everyday shopping here and help support This I Believe! It can be loaded to your computer, your mobile device, or plugged straight into your car. Perfect for personal or classroom use! Click here to learn more. Sign up for our free, weekly podcast of featured essays. You can download recent episodes individually, or subscribe to automatically receive each podcast. Abortion and crime: who should you believe? Two very vocal critics, Steve Sailer and John Lott, have been exerting a lot of energy lately trying to convince the world that the abortion reduces crime hypothesis is not correct. A number of readers have asked me to respond to these criticisms. First, let’s start by reviewing the basic facts that support the Donohue- Levitt hypothesis that legalized abortion in the 1. Five states legalized abortion three years before Roe v. Crime started falling three years earlier in these states, with property crime (done by younger people) falling before violent crime. After abortion was legalized, the availability of abortions differed dramatically across states. In some states like North Dakota and in parts of the deep South, it was virtually impossible to get an abortion even after Roe v. If one compares states that had high abortion rates in the mid 1. For the period from 1. Note, that this is a period before the generations exposed to legalized abortion are old enough to do much crime. So this is exactly what the Donohue- Levitt theory predicts. But from the period 1. Roe cohort is reaching peak crime ages, the high abortion states see a decline in crime of 3. Our original data ended in 1. If one updated the study, the results would be similar.)3) All of the decline in crime from 1. Roe v. For people born before abortion legalization, there is no difference in the crime patterns for high abortion and low abortion states, just as the Donohue- Levitt theory predicts. When we compare arrest rates of people born in the same state, just before and just after abortion legalization, we once again see the identical pattern of lower arrest rates for those born after legalization than before. The evidence from Canada, Australia, and Romania also support the hypothesis that abortion reduces crime. Studies have shown a reduction in infanticide, teen age drug use, and teen age childbearing consistent with the theory that abortion will reduce other social ills similar to crime. These six points all support the hypothesis. There is one fact that, without more careful analysis, argues against the Donohue- Levitt story: 7) The homicide rate of young males (especially young Black males) temporarily skyrocketed in the late 1. Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington, DC, before returning to regular levels soon thereafter. These young males who were hitting their peak crime years were born right around the time abortion was legalized. If you look at the serious criticisms that have been leveled against the Donohue- Levitt hypothesis, virtually all of them revolve around this spike in homicide by young men in the late 1. The obvious culprit you might think about is crack cocaine. Crack cocaine was hitting the inner cities at exactly this time, disproportionately affecting minorities, and the violence was heavily concentrated among young Black males such as the gang members we write about in Freakonomics. So to figure out whether this spike in young Black male homicides is evidence against legalized abortion reducing crime, or even evidence legalized abortion causes crime, one needs to control for the crack epidemic to find the answer. This is the argument that I have been making for years. First in the Slate exchange with Steve Sailer back in 1. Donohue and Levitt response to Ted Joyce, and now in a recent paper by Roland Fryer, Paul Heaton, me, and Kevin Murphy. The key points I mentioned in Slate five years ago in debating Sailer are reprinted below: Your hypothesis that crack, not abortion, is the story, provides a testable alternative to our explanation of the facts. You argue: The arrival of crack led to large increases in crime rates between 1. African- American youths. The fall of the crack epidemic left many of the bad apples of this cohort dead, imprisoned, or scared straight. Consequently, not only did crime fall back to its original pre- crack level, but actually dropped even further in a “overshoot” effect. States that had high abortion rates in the ’7. If either assumption 1 or 2 is true, then the crack epidemic can explain some of the rise and fall in crime in the ’8. In order for your crack hypothesis to undermine the “abortion reduces crime” theory, however, all three assumptions must hold true. So, let’s look at the assumptions one by one and see how they fare. Did the arrival of crack lead to rising youth crime? No argument from me here. Did the decline in crack lead to a “boomerang” effect in which crime actually fell by more than it had risen with the arrival of crack? Unfortunately for your story, the empirical evidence overwhelmingly rejects this claim. Using specifications similar to those in our paper, we find that the states with the biggest increases in murder over the rising crack years (1. But for every 1. 0 percent that murder rose between 1. For your story to explain the decline in crime that we attribute to legalized abortion, this estimate would have to be about five times bigger. Moreover, for violent crime and property crime, increases in these crimes over the period 1. In other words, for crimes other than murder, the impact of crack is not even in the right direction for your story. Were high- abortion- rate states in the ’7. Given the preceding paragraph, this is a moot point, because all three assumptions must be true to undermine the abortion story, but let’s look anyway. A reasonable proxy for how hard the crack epidemic hit a state is the rise in crime in that state over the period 1. Your theory requires a large positive correlation between abortion rates in a state in the ’7. In fact the actual correlations, depending on the crime category, range between - . Thus, the claim that high- abortion states are the same states that were hit hardest by crack is not true empirically. While some states with high abortion rates did have a lot of crack (e. New York and D. C.), Vermont, Kansas, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Washington were among the 1. These were not exactly the epicenters of the crack epidemic. So, what is the final tally? Two of the key assumptions underlying your alternative hypothesis appear to be false: The retreat of crack has not led to an “overshoot” in crime, causing it to be lower than 1. Moreover, when we re- run our analysis controlling for both changes in crime rates from 1. Re- reading this response five years later, it still sounds pretty good to me. Interestingly, at the time, Sailer refused to respond directly to my arguments. His response in Slate completely side- stepped the fact that I had destroyed his core argument. He wrote, for instance, “. In this essay I’ll step back and explain why this straightforward insight ! And if you compare his Slate arguments to his “new” article in the American Conservative, you will see that his thinking has not progressed very far on the issue. In contrast, I spent two years working on that paper on crack cocaine, which provides hard, quantitative evidence in favor of those earlier conjectures I had made. Now let’s talk about John Lott for a minute. Along with John Whitley, he wrote a paper on abortion and crime. It is so loaded with inaccurate claims, errors and statistical mistakes that I hate to even provide a link to it, but for the sake of completeness you can find it here. Virtually nothing in this paper is correct, and it is no coincidence that four years later it remains unpublished. In a letter to the editor at Wall Street Journal, Lott claims that our results are driven by the particular measure of abortions that we used in the first paper. I guess he never bothered to read our response to Joyce in which we show in Table 1 that the results are nearly identical when we use his preferred data source. It is understandable that he could make this argument five years ago, but why would he persist in making it in 2. Let me simply end with an analogy. Let’s say that we are living in a world in which global warming is taking place, but also a world in which El Nino occasionally leads to radical, short run disruptions in normal weather patterns. You wouldn’t argue that global warming is false because for a year or two we had cold winters. You’d want to figure out what effect El Nino has on winter weather and then see whether controlling for El Nino it looks like global warming is taking place. The impact of legalized abortion on crime is a lot like global warming — it is slow and steady and grows a little year by year. Crack is like El Nino, it comes in with a fury and then largely disappears. That is why I have invested so much time and effort in understanding both abortion and crack, and why the criticisms made against the abortion- reduces- crime hypothesis to date have not been very compelling.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
September 2017
Categories |