Do you prefer fact to fiction or fiction to fact? I think it's inevitable after watching any film based on real life individuals or happenings that you may find yourself fact checking choices made by the filmmakers. Did Johnny Cash really ask June Carter to marry him on stage like in Walk the Line? Yes, he did. But what if he didn't? Would you be annoyed or angry by the writer, director, and actor's choice to make the story more whimsical?

Variety did a little fact checking of their own on this year's films with notable historical references. The article rated films such as Catch a Fire, Pursuit of Happyness and The Last King of Scotland according to their historical relevance and gave a little synopsis of the filmmaker's "spin" on the story.

Almost all the films had a high rating according to factual validity although none scored a perfect ten. Why all the twisting of the truth to make an already good story better? Well first of all, most stories do not come with that tried and true "Hollywood Ending" that viewers love so much. A story, no matter how difficult it is throughout (Hotel Rwanda anybody?) ultimately needs to have an awe-inspiring ending -- leaving the audience member uplifted and with a sense of hope.

So which movies ranked the highest and the lowest? World Trade Center received a nine on the fact meter. The story is about two NYPD officers who survived after their extraordinary heroism following the attacks on 9/11. Writer Andrea Berloff had the upper hand though as she had direct accounts from the real life survivors; whereas Sofia Coppola couldn't have a word with Marie Antoinette. If she had a dialogue with the late queen she may have found out that Manolo Blahniks were not yet available at street markets and New Order wouldn't be arriving on the scene for a couple hundred more years -- but that doesn't mean the film is any less fun.

I say, write it well, direct it well, perform it well and then maybe I won't even care if it's fact or fiction.