After reflecting about "The Passion" thread and the upcoming film, "Luther," I had been thinking about historical accuracy and films. Here is what I am thinking: We understand that historical movies are based on actual historical events, so of course there will be liberties taken. At the ending credits, there is always a disclaimer that states that. However, when do we consider something a "factual error"? An example: a) In "The Untouchables," government agent Elliot Ness is depicted as a man with a wife and children. The real life Ness did not marry until the 1940s. The idea that Ness was married with children in the 1920s would be considered a factual error, but since "The Untouchables" is a film loosely based on actual events and persons, it is not. If a film is "loosely based" on actual events, then any instances of historical factual errors do not exist? Does having the disclaimer at the end of the film excuse a historical film of its historical inaccuracies? Any thoughts on the issue?