12 Common Movie Criticisms That Make No Sense

5. "It's Factually Inaccurate"

We've all got at least one friend, perhaps they're a doctor, a lawyer, an historian or a scientist, who just loves to point out insignificant inaccuracies in movies as though it's a personal affront to them and their field.

Nothing quite boosts the ego like telling a room full of people all the scientific flaws in Interstellar or that Taken wasn't, believe it or not, a factually accurate depiction of the complexities of human trafficking. Oh, and did you know that Lucy's claim about humans using just 10% of their brain was total bulls***?

Though there are obviously limits to the tolerance of factual inaccuracy in films, ultimately it comes down to this - does it affect the heft of the story or betray the world depicted therein?

Filmmakers frequently sacrifice historical veracity - usually unintentionally but sometimes not - in favour of capturing the spirit of a moment or time, and they'd be the first to chide you for ever assuming that a period epic was supposed to be an authoritative representation of anything.

Basically, if you take your entire knowledge of a human being or event from an Oscar-baiting movie, more fool you. And if you can't watch a movie for more than five minutes without complaining about how it disgraces your own professional field, you need to build up some damn suspension of disbelief.