For example, most wars are not constant fighting. Even if they did, I expect the film to be untrue so I can be entertained.

Certainly, I enjoy films better when they seem to be a reasonably accurate portrayal of a time (costumes, technologies), but I don't carp about whether some person existed. I often wonder if such films as Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or Rio Grande, or just about any western flick was judged so harshly when it came out as we judge 'historical' pictures today? Or any pirate film? Zorro? Any film with knights in it? It seems to me that unless you are making a documentary, the historical accuracy doesn't truly matter in detail. Martin and Tavington did not actually exist, they are merely characters, possibly based (as has been suggested) on actual historical figures.

All such films come with a disclaimer saying something to the effect that the characters portrayed aren't real and the story is just that, a story. However, in this case, I feel I must point out a few things. I admit that I have done so in a few cases myself (Thin Red Line). Whenever I see a film that is supposed to have historical basis, I am always a bit surprised to find out how much people complain about historical inaccuracies.