Gee, why doesn't that surprise me?

I discovered an interesting web site called History vs. Hollywood. This site looks at recent Hollywood movies and compares them with actual events.

Their research is educational. Sometimes for the sake of a movie producers will stray from the facts in order to make a concise film, such as including an event that took place a year after the trip portrayed in The Green Book, or concocting a fictional event such as the infamous underground (subway) scene in Darkest Hour (which did not really happen, but Churchill was known to "disappear" from time to time as he went out to get the common person's take on events). Generally, people have no real problem with that.

One film, which I have absolutely no interest in seeing, is Vice, the biopic about former Vice President in Dick Cheney. Part of the format of History vs. Hollywood is to ask the question, "Did (this) really happen?" With The Green Book, Darkest Hour, and 15:17 to Paris. the answer is mostly "Yes," with an explanation of whatever difference there may be. With Vice the answer is mostly "No."

The last paragraph of that post says it all:

So why rewrite history? Is (director/writer Adam)McKay hoping that people simply believe his film instead of the truth? It's hard to say, but it's likely that many on the left will embrace it, while most on the right will dismiss it. Fiction is much easier to believe when it fits your own narrative. This is certainly true of Hollywood, who nominated Vice for nine Critics' Choice Awards, six Golden Globes (Bale won for Best Actor) and eight Oscars (including Best Picture, Best Actor - Christian Bale, Best Supporting Actor - Sam Rockwell, Best Supporting Actress - Amy Adams, Best Director - Adam McKay, Best Original Screenplay - Adam McKay, etc.). This is the very same Hollywood that has refused to nominate a number of biopics in recent years over far less fiction than is found in Vice.

Another political hit piece, and Hollywood wonders why movie attendance continues to go down.