Half the fun of planning each doll is doing the research. And while books are wonderful for written accounts of events, we often rely of films and television programs to help us get more of a feel for historical characters we commemorate whenever possible. Yes, this History Channel is our friend!

These are our thoughts on some of the movies and documentaries that we watch. And then we figured while we were at it, we'd include some other films and videos that either inspired us or somehow helped us out on a little detail. So yes, there's a couple videos with some rather nasty crime scene footage here as well.

We also have a little online venue where you can purchase videos with historical or true crime themes: VIOLENCE IN HISTORY VIDEO SHOP

The story about the conditions within the notorious Confederate prison camp during the Civil War. The sheer vileness of camp life is shown in all its brutal glory, and is remarkably accurate. The story itself falls a bit short on portraying some of its more infamous characters as being anything other than pure monsters, while the history books explain a bit more about the financial shortages that had more to do with the conditions then the men in charge of them did. Still, it’s a great resource film for Civil War era costumes, mannerisms, and of course, general unpleasantness.

Anyone familiar with the world of forensic pathology knows the name of Dr. Michael Badin, mortician of the stars. Much like the Court TV's "Forensic Files", this show focuses on various crime stories and outlines the investigative tools used to solve them (or at least get them as close to solved as possible.) Badin will often explain methods and clues used to detect cause of death, such as hemorrhaging and bruising patterns. A good resource for artists who use corpses as a theme, since it's always good to know about the kinky little details when adding realistic touches to simulated cadavers.

 I'm sorry folks, but no matter how many awards this film won simply doesn't change the fact that it has about as much historical value as Peter Pan. But it tries to add some authenticity to its period settings, I'll give it that. And to make us forget that William Wallace is more of a legend than an actual hero, it gives us a lot of breathtaking brutal battle scenes. And we even get a nice parting gift. We get a reasonably dramatic portrayal of a drawing and quartering scene. Mind you, we don't see a lot of the operation itself, (which might be a bummer for those who'd love to see Mel Gibson get his intestines yanked out) but the atmosphere is set so there's little doubt as to what is going on upon that scaffold.

Based on the play by Arthur Miller, the story has its fair share of dramatic tale-telling, but the overall events of what happened in Salem in 1692 are indeed factual. Yes, half the town of Salem woke up stupid and believed a bunch of girls who were trying to escape punishment for being naughty. Yes, a lot of people ended up on the gallows over it. The overall feel of the film is fairly accurate, which is why it found its place here in this section.

In the "real killer" movie series, this film is most perplexing. Not so much that it was especially well-made for the money, but rather that the film-makers thought they needed to add creative fillers and embellishments to a story that was already available in its entirety straight from the horse's mouth. Unlike many of his compatriots, Jeffery Dahmer didn't mind telling full accounts of his crimes and his stories never changed. But still, the film adds annoying neighbors he never had and a few other colorful sprinkles on the ice cream sundae that is interesting enough without the frills. Even still, it's one of the better films in its sub-genre.

Dracula-The Dark Prince

We've all seen the movies that claim to tell the real story of Vlad Dracula (also known affectionately as Vlad the Impaler) that wind up making him out to be a bloodthirsty tyrant with no soul. Fortunately, this is not one of those movies. While it does take a few creative liberties, it's perhaps the best portrayal of the legendary Romanian prince I've seen on film to date. A man with a deep sense of justice and honor, who loves his country and his family and does what he feels he has to do to keep things in order. The settings, costumes, and story is all very beautiful - right up until the last ten minutes. Unfortunately, the film-makers couldn't resist cheesing out and tossing in the vampire story that is so often associated with his name. My advice to the viewer - turn off the TV right after Vlad leaves his adult son to go to a meeting in the church. It's a much better ending that way.

A visually beautiful film that tells the story of Elizabeth I as a young adult on the verge of inheriting the throne of England and struggling to keep it. As much as we'd love to believe that this brave woman stood up against all odds, with a frumpy suitor stealing her clothes and several inept assassins stalking her every move - the history books tell us otherwise. Bloody Mary wasn't so fanatical, Mary of Guise wasn't murdered by a one-night-stand, and court life in England just wasn't that terribly attractive. The saving grace for this film is that the period costuming is to die for. (Well, quite literally in the case of one poor lady who borrows a poisoned gown.)

Probably the best docu-film I've seen on Queen Elizabeth I to date.  It's a long film, but pays attention to details as it goes into Elizabeth's more mature years and her various trysts as well as her famous political manuvers.

This movie also features the absolutely most accurate portrayal of Mary Stuart's (Queen of Scots) execution that I have ever seen on film.  To be quite honest, it shocked me so much that I had to go get Garith to show him that someone actually did their research when staging Mary's final moments.  Highly recommended.

The classic of death documentaries. Where else can you watch hours of corpses and bloody havoc without commercials? Of course, commercials might be an interesting addition. Anyway, Shiva used to use these documentaries as makeup research tools back in the long long ago before there was a Rotten.com. They pretty much cover all the bases... murder, suicide, animal attack, execution, public transportation calamities, natural disasters, disease, and even field trips to the morgue.

 A History Channel program that goes into a great deal of detail about the French Revolution and the events leading up to it. Asides from its obvious historical study value, a lot of attention went in to the look and feel of the characters and sets, making it a terrific source for researching French costumes of that era.

The tale of the killer-clown, Mr. John Wayne Gacy. Yet another in a series of low-budget films that claim to depict the true stories of America's most prolific serial killers, this one doesn't quite live up to the examples of the others that accompany it on the straight-to-video racks. While it is true that the film does include some of the facts surrounding the Gacy case, it takes far more liberties in embellishing them to make them more interesting. Then again, Gacy's numerous confessions/retractions and constantly changing statements don't really help for anyone trying to figure out exactly what went on at his notorious crawlspace-riddled house.

 Probably the most historically inaccurate movie we've seen in a long time. I've heard this film described as being 250 years of Roman history condensed down into 90 minutes. Half the fun of watching it is to try to guess how many different Roman Emperors are in the composite mix that is the character of Commodus. (I can name four!) But on the bright side, the battle scenes are visually stunning both in and out of the Coliseum and the sets and costuming are both quite lovely.

While there's a lot of evidence out there that the homicidal adventures of Henry Lee Lucas are more of a fabrication than anything else, this film does an incredible job of illustrating the character as a cold, quiet, and unpredictable serial killer who makes friends with a dull-witted and obnoxious man and teaches him the ropes (pardon the pun) of torturous murder. The characters are intentionally unattractive and under-played with no frills, giving the film a very uncomfortable sense of realism. The music is simple and yet incredibly powerful. The swiftness of death and the noticeable lack of blood only adds to the film and makes it more convincing to the viewer. I've heard people say they felt like they needed to take a shower after watching this film.

I’ve really been digging this movie trend of going behind-the-scenes with the investigation on famous murder cases lately, ala Black Dahlia and Zodiac, so when this film became available for my viewing pleasure I had to give it a day in court.

For those of you not aware of the case, they “Lonely Hearts Killers” were a pair of swindlers-turned-murderers who targeted rich-but-single women selected through personal classified ads in the 1940s. It was bloody, yet tastefully done. After all, it was a film about two brutal killers so it had to be a little messy, but they didn’t go overboard with it. Loved the story, loved the way it was done.

One complaint I did have was towards the end when the killer couple got their just desserts. For the most part, the electrocution scenes were done well but lost credibility on some technical points… like unshaven heads that did not appear to catch fire. But that’s just me being a stickler for details (and a bit of an execution history buff.) But overall, I thought it was an excellent film and would seriously recommend it to anyone interested in true-crime films.

The story of the infamous Austrian-born French queen, from the announcement of her engagement to the Dauphin of France right up to her execution in revolutionary Paris.

In a word, this film really impressed me.  While dramatic liberties were certainly taken involving Antoinette's love life, and some characters (example: Madame Elizabeth & the Princesse Lambelle) were combined, the story touched on many actual events and even had a few small details that seem to be often overlooked by more modern depictions of the famous queen.

Norma Shearer did a wonderful performance as Antoinette, paired with love interest Tyrone Power (who seems to have been under-used in the film as the Swedish ambassador.)  Another point I really enjoyed - Robert Morley's performance as Louis XVI, which was also Morley's film debut.  Unlike more modern films, the King is portrayed as an unattractive and reluctant man, seemingly slow but by no means stupid... a more accurate portrayal of the actual historical character.  The contrast between the king and queen in an awkward arranged marriage and the gradual affection they developed between one another was played out very nicely.

This film was the most extravagant picture produced during its time, and you can tell that a lot of love went into it.  My only complaint was that it is in black and white and I would have loved to have seen those sets and costumes in color!

There’s little doubt that the film was directed towards a younger audience and the idea that Marie was a “hip” teenager who happened to marry well and could literally spend her life partying would sound like a cool premise for a teen film. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t work once the Bastille is stormed. The actual historical turning points are glossed over so much that it seems that the filmmakers just assumed that everyone who went to see it would already know all about the French Revolution and therefore they didn’t need to go into all that boring stuff. Instead, they spend ten minutes showing us Marie’s shoe collection.

When word was brought to the palace that the Bastille had been overtaken and that the people are generally pissed off, I was hoping we’d be dispensing with the frilly parties and getting to the real nitty-gritty about exactly how much Marie was loathed by the people. Instead, we get some sort of Eva Peron type of an entrance scene with Marie stepping on the balcony and looking at an angry torch-bearing mob and saying…well, absolutely nothing. Next thing we know she and Louis are being whisked away in a carriage to places and fates unknown. (Or at least unknown to anyone who didn’t do their history homework beforehand.)

 This film has an awful lot of hype surrounding it. Maybe it was the fact that it was banned from being shown in a lot of places, or maybe it was because they handed out barf-bags out at the few remaining cinemas it was shown at. And honestly, it deserves every once of its notorious reputation. While its probably "tame" by today's standards, the film held no qualms about showing its audience the full impact of the horrors endured by suspected heretics during the European witch-hunts. The film is based around four cases in the archives of the burning times, with its central villains portraying the power-maddened righteous who take advantage of their position and care little about actual guilt or innocence of the accused. Tortures are shown in all their horrific glory, and many executions are downright cruel and unusual.

A film speculating on how the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus may have been like, we've included it here because it is a good resource on costuming and much of the graphic brutality of Roman justice. (Well, that and the use of ancient languages... best to brush up on your Latin and Aramaic first if you don't care for subtitles.) Keep in mind that "passion" translates into "suffering", and there is a great deal of that. Regardless of your religious inclination, it can be a difficult film to watch.

I found this quite by accident, and it immediately caught my attention because I recognized the name. Albert Pierrepoint was one on England's last hangmen, and he was also the executioner of those condemned Nazi war criminals during the Nuremberg Trials.

Knowing a bit about his life, I had wondered how they were going to pull this off without either taking the usual dramatic liberties with the details or making it an endless walk up and down the gallows. I was thrilled that they focused much on the duel nature of executioners, and how Pierrepoint dealt with his grim job while managing to have a relatively healthy "outside life" as well.

From what I could tell, the plot is pretty accurate. I already knew the story so there were really no surprises for me, but I was very impressed with how it was told and the attention to little details. It's certainly a lower budget indy film, but a well done one.

 Being very familiar with the Marquis de Sade, this was a must-see movie for me, if only to laugh at the blatant liberties taken with the story of his life and to appreciate the post-revolutionary period costuming. To be fair, it's a rather enjoyable film, despite the huge historical inaccuracies. Lots of great lines to quote, and the antics of the Marquis are certainly admirable (despite that some of them probably never happened!).

Alan Rickman does an incredible job at portraying Russia's most intriguing and bewildering historical character in this film. In fact, the whole film is done incredibly well, giving the viewer a fine feel for what life was like during the reign of the last Tsar for both peasants and royalty alike. Rasputin himself is portrayed as being a cunning, debauched and disheveled soul who manages to appear life-loving and tormented simultaneously despite the adoration and advantages he receives from the Tsarina and her young, long-suffering son. Lots of thought went into this high-budget film, resulting in a story that is a must-see for anyone with an interest in this time period or the strange man who wielded such power in it.

 Set in Paris during the Revolutionary Reign of Terror, this is a fun and entertaining film about events that never happened. Mr. Pimpernel being a sort of Aristocratic Zorro who snatches condemned Counts and Duchesses from the clutches of Robespierre and his men while rescuing the Dauphin. But the story is good, the main character is foppish and witty, and the costumes are just beautiful. There are actually a couple versions of the film, but I recommend the one with Jane Seymour because the costuming is far more elaborate.

Schindler's List

There's really no question why this film is so acclaimed. There was an awful lot of homework done in the writing and producing in order to hit on a lot of accurate points and details about life for both Germans and Jews in Nazi Germany. Those looking for WWII costuming leads might find it a bit tricky since it is mostly shot in black and white, but all the details are in place - albeit colorless. The whole look and feel to the film is entirely convincing and obviously well-researched, which makes it an excellent historical resource.

America's favorite serial killer is portrayed in all his cool and suave glory in this film that claims to revisit his life and crimes. While the womanizing Ted character is convincing, the film tends to takes a few of liberties with how he went about committing his crimes and takes a great deal of dramatic liberties when portraying Bundy's final hours. Particularly amusing was the homage paid to the widely-whispered rumor about who actually threw the switch on Mr. Bundy. Not a bad film, considering they were working with both a small budget and the unreliable accounts from the late Ted Bundy himself.

Personally, I think the name just about says it all, particularly the "worst" part. For people who are looking for graphic death footage, it might be of some use. But many of the clips are fuzzy, dark (and not in the good way), and either not close enough or way too close to see any real details. Yes, it's the amateur video hour of doom!