For my part, while I sometimes find inaccuracy in films ranging from amusing to outright galling (Screenwriter Randall Wallace's stated defence is "I don't let history dictate my writing, as I'm happy to let a good story be the history for people rather than the facts"), the point is well made and taken that movies are there to entertain and make money.
When I was eight, I saw my first "war movie" - Guns of the Navarone. I didn't actually read an Alastair MacLean novel until years later, and then had to put it down because the instantaneous unexplained plot twists were literally laughable... but the point is that first movie gave me an interest in history, which sure enough, led to me read non-fiction books on history and educating myself that way.
I can't think of a single film significant industry out there (be it Hollywood, UK/Euro, or HK) which really cares about educating it's audience, and I don't think they should. Hopefully what they're doing instead is inspiring younger audiences to learn about what really happened (as opposed to what happened on the big screen).
Someone mentioned "The Longest Day"... I'd read both "The Longest Day" and "A Bridge Too Far" before I watched either film with my grandfather. That's a bigger accomplishment than it sounds, considering Cornelius Ryan wasn't a pop-"historian" like Ambrose was, and I was thirteen when I read them.
Agreed sometimes movies **** me. But movies should inspire, books should educate. I don't think even a good documentary really tells as much as a book does, unless of course you're dealing with an entire documentary series which gives the writers of that series time enough to really dig into the content - I find "The World at War" to be an outstanding documentary series for WW2 because it's so accessible, but yet stll informative and balanced... even if it is aged.