Medieval Movies

I was watching Braveheart again and after finding that now I can't watch the Sterling Battle without yelling at the British for running their heavy horse toward the frontline instead of flanking, I can't think of another decent Medieval Times type of movie. Can anyone else?

First Knight doesn't count either because the two battle scenes are so badly done I can't even follow as in whats going on. I mean, Richard Gere kills this guy and that guy, nothing like Braveheart where you can see some organized strategy.

I loved that the Battle of Sterling Bridge couldn't afford a bridge...

Any way, there are alot of British movies and there's Kingdom of Heaven, out on DVD Tuesday.

You didn’t' actually pay money to see First Knight did you? Oh and the "first knight" was a Nubian; Saint Morris as he is now called. He was a Christian cavalryman in the Legion who was martyred. Not for killing a bunch of women and children as is fashionable among some nowadays, but because he wouldn't kill his fellow Christians.

As to Medieval era movies there are tons. If you don't mind '60s style acting you can get 300 Spartans, the pro and anti Joan of Arc movies, Druids is a bit European but still good; just search Amazon, you'll find them.

I have always liked some old ones. Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky still stands up for a 1938 film as does Henry the 5th. For the feel of Medieval combat - as opposed to historical accuracy, the Lord of the Rings films take some beating. Helm's Deep looks just like a seige assault and the Charge of the Rohirim in the Battle of Pelinor fields is truely amazing. If you think spearman/ men at arms instead of orcs itis a great representation of medieval battles.

and if it wasn't for old Gandalf and his blindingly bright light at Helm's Deep, the orc polearms would have gone 'MTW spears v cavalry' on the Rohirrim. And we all know how ugly that would have been.

The battle scenes in Braveheart actually suck, also. Sure, they may be fun to watch. A little puppy is fun to watch. But that doesn't make it a serious or a respectable thing.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matty

and if it wasn't for old Gandalf and his blindingly bright light at Helm's Deep, the orc polearms would have gone 'MTW spears v cavalry' on the Rohirrim. And we all know how ugly that would have been.

---

Call it valoured up Royal knights charging down hill into the flank of squeesed spears/urban milita/men at arms and it looks a fore gone conclusion without the "White Light" It also shows that in medieval warfare morale is king - but having a big stick helps!~:cheers:

Moved

Well, against medium cavalry accelerating down an incline, with or without a spear, you're not going to win...

Yeah, Lord of the Rings wins for me. When you look at how steep the mountain was that the Rohhirrim charged down, and when you consider that the Uruks broke the line before they met (which often happened historically), its not that far fetched that the Rohhirrim would have done nasty damage.

And Pelenor is just awesome. The fact that Legolas kills three Oliphants at once does make it lose points, but just 2.

Actually horses are not good at running down step inclines. As can actually be seen from the scene, the cavalry is simply not running very fast as the horses are leaning back to retain balance.

Also the Uruks didn't break before contact, that is something Uruks wouldn't do (the no fear part). No they were blinded and broke formation of pikes, letting the cavalry get between them. Not terribly good.

What happened would be something like valoured Armenian Heavy Cavalry (they are the most similar to the Rohirrim) charging into prepared Swiss Armoured Pikemen. Result? It should have been a unit of crushed cavalry.

And Legolas didn't kill three... Wasn't it just one?

Oh, guess I was wrong. And now that I think about it, that hill is way to steep. But I always thought the Uruk-hai couldn't compete with the Mordor Uruks, and were inferior due to the fact they were grown more quickly.

I thought Legolas killed one, then it tripped and knocked over two more... mabye it was just another one. But that is still a bit overkill

The Uruk-Hai are faster and stronger, but the Mordor Orcs tended to be more cunning/crafty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roark

The Uruk-Hai are faster and stronger, but the Mordor Orcs tended to be more cunning/crafty.

---

Yup, that was my taking on it too. Note the small reference Gimli gives to their capabilities. They are a far cry from anything they have yet to meet.
They are created by the mastermind that Saruman is... Obviously he did quite well.

Just make sure you never buy a movie called the Conqueror or Conqueror of the desert. It's about Temujin Genghis Khan, but it's form 1956 so all the roles are filled with white or hispainic actors. John Wayne plays Temujin.

The best ever medieval film is a flick I've watched a couple of times but can't quite remember the title... I think it was "flesh and blood"

It's a Paul Verhoeven film (of the 4th man, Robocop, Total Recal fame and Showgirls infamy) and it features Rutger Hauer as a very convincing mercenary captain. The cinematography is great, the period is being depicted with thrilling accuracy (you cam almost smell medieval, that's how good) Hauer is, as I said, very convincing, there are slight (or... brutal) flops concerning weaponry and such, but the atmosphere is stunningly medieval (how really the medieval era was) and Jennifer Jason Leigh (quite pretty back then in 1985 when the film was made) has a couple of very hot nude scenes.

There ain't much battle in it (it's not a war flick) but the first scenes are about a full-fledged siege and they are fun to watch anyway. The real fun starts later, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

I was watching Braveheart again and after finding that now I can't watch the Sterling Battle without yelling at the British for running their heavy horse toward the frontline instead of flanking, I can't think of another decent Medieval Times type of movie. Can anyone else?

---

Both sides were British at the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

Anyhoo... Richard III, by Shakespeare, with the Band of Brothers speech. That was decent.

There is always Henry V.

It might not be perfect but it has a great atmosphere, and it makes sure that it doesn't get carried away into stuff it can't handle. Very good in my book. You should know your limiations and make the best of it.

The Name of The Rose is good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

You didn’t' actually pay money to see First Knight did you? Oh and the "first knight" was a Nubian; Saint Morris as he is now called. He was a Christian cavalryman in the Legion who was martyred. Not for killing a bunch of women and children as is fashionable among some nowadays, but because he wouldn't kill his fellow Christians.

---

What movie are you talking about? I'm talking about First Knight with Richard Gere and Sean Connery. YOu remember, about Camelot and the Round Table. They add a love content with Quenivere and Lancelot.

This movie was my favorite for a while, not so good now but at the time, I didn't see Braveheart yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

Both sides were British at the Battle of Stirling Bridge.

Anyhoo... Richard III, by Shakespeare, with the Band of Brothers speech. That was decent.

---

Yeah, if you count Scotland as "British" then yes. But thats not my point. But to clearify for the analrententive, I MEAN THE SIDE OF ENGLAND. You know, the only one WITH THE HEAVY HORSE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Yeah, Lord of the Rings wins for me. When you look at how steep the mountain was that the Rohhirrim charged down, and when you consider that the Uruks broke the line before they met (which often happened historically), its not that far fetched that the Rohhirrim would have done nasty damage.

---

It nearly made me cry to see Saruman's toughest bad guys break the lines for a small cavalry charge. It also made me cry when the cavalry stopped for a minute and watched the enemy, thinking: "perhaps if we wait long enough they'll turn their spears towards us and form a nice little phalanx". The only way to show the scene without being inaccurate or making the orcs look silly, would be to make them halt for at the most a few seconds, then quickly charge down towards the orcs taking them by surprise, and hitting them to the flank. As it was now, in both Helm's deep and Pellenor fields the orcs managed to reorganize. And 100.000 orcs breaking ranks in Pellenor fields against 600 cavalrymen was plain stupid - how scared are you of orcs if they are that big cowards? Anyway, the movies were very good despite these flaws, even if I may sound a little negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

And 100.000 orcs breaking ranks in Pellenor fields against 600 cavalrymen was plain stupid - how scared are you of orcs if they are that big cowards? Anyway, the movies were very good despite these flaws, even if I may sound a little negative.

---

While I agree withyou on the previous accounts you should not underestimate the results of a cavalry breakthrough. Gaugamela and Issus? Pretty much the same happened there, actually fewer cavalry broke through.
And honestly, if I was a Gondorian and knew how much I sucked (Orcs slapping them around) I would certainly be afraid.

Orcs were good at offensive actions as their many numbers could cover any event but if events conspired against them they would not be very strong.
Many armies have shown themselves brave and tenacious only to have some unforseen event in the rear cause them to break off their assault and flee in terror (despite the fact that they suffered an equal chance of death to the front).

At Issus and Gaugamela the cavalry broke through pretty undisciplined troops -- Uruk-Hai are presumed to be strong, tireless and well-honed for military matters. So, no, without Gandalf's trick, the battle of Helm's Deep would have been a pretty sad affair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

Yeah, if you count Scotland as "British" then yes. But thats not my point. But to clearify for the analrententive, I MEAN THE SIDE OF ENGLAND. You know, the only one WITH THE HEAVY HORSE.

---

I haven't seen the movie since the hogmanay of the millenium, I wouldn't know.

To clarify for the anally-retentive: It is not if you count Scotland as "British", because Scotland is British, being of the island of Great Britain... Both sides were British, one was simply from the North of Britain and one from the South...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

While I agree withyou on the previous accounts you should not underestimate the results of a cavalry breakthrough. Gaugamela and Issus? Pretty much the same happened there, actually fewer cavalry broke through.
And honestly, if I was a Gondorian and knew how much I sucked (Orcs slapping them around) I would certainly be afraid.

Orcs were good at offensive actions as their many numbers could cover any event but if events conspired against them they would not be very strong.
Many armies have shown themselves brave and tenacious only to have some unforseen event in the rear cause them to break off their assault and flee in terror (despite the fact that they suffered an equal chance of death to the front).

---

Yeah, but at Gaugamela the enemy was pinned, undisciplined and didn't outnumber their opponents that much. They outnumbered the cavalry by far, but since the infantry was pinned, the cavalry just needed to hit a very small part of the line at the time, with perhaps even superiority in numbers in each such confrontation, and rout the pinned enemy, then proceed to the next part of the line and so on. It's enough to rout a small fraction of such a line, perhaps just one fifth, in order for the others to panick, because they have nothing to put up against the cavalry because they're occupied at the front.

The orcs weren't pinned and could form a both strong and deep line, pack tightly, and if they had stood up the charge would have stopped after 10 ranks at the most. By that time, the orcs could have moved in from the sides and started enveloping the cavalry.

Well, the orcs were getting hit from both sides, the cavalry coming down from Helms Deep, and the ones charging down the hill. How many riders did Eomer have? I should know that, and I'm sure it answered it, but I can't rember...

But the Pelenor Fields battle was better anyway. The orcs break before the charge then, right? Or am I just nuts? Though I don't understand why they choose to charge the Oliphants, instead of shooting them full of arrows.

Ok it seems people are messing this up a bit.

Now do anyone believe there was 100.000 Uruk-Hai at Helms Deep? Good. Then it obviously can't be Helms Deep I was commenting.

At Pelenor the Orcs were occupied just as much as the Persian infantry, in fact the entire Persian levy left the field without ever getting into contact due to this breakthrough.
The frontlines were fighting while those behind could turn and oppose the enemy cavalry. It just is that the formation would not be behind them, it woul be a few ranks only that could oppose the charge. Effectively the Rohirrim flanked the Orcs. Locally the Orcs faced them of course.
And I doubt the Orcs were much better in terms of discipline and and morale than the Persian levies. The humans do pretty much regard them with contempt, not only becasue of the brutality but also because they are bad as warriors. Well equipped but bad, they were not some kind of Uruk-Hai.
And the 6000 Rohirrim is certainly better than the about 8000 Macedonians against 150.000+ Persians.

The Orcs do not break before the charge, they are on the verge of it though, but it happens just as the cavalry strikes home. After the initial contact the cahrge should haev slowed down, and I was later pleased to notice that some of the Rohirrim do indeed get bogged down. But overall they could never have kept rolling like this. Nor could they just haev swept the first ranks away as we see, it would have been a huge pile of bodies. I do not doubt that perhaps the Orcs could have routed from that, but it was too clean.

But if we assume the charge had gone well then 6000 heavy cavalry could very easily have routed and almost annihilated 100.000 Orcs. That was my point.

Medieval movies:

1) I bought the Kingdom of Heaven dvd - I enjoyed it a lot - lots of atmosphere. There are also two (one hour) documentaries on disc two that are very good about telling about the history of the Crusades. Note: a Director's cut of the film will be coming out next year which will include an extra HOUR added to the movie. Still, it is a worthwhile buy.

2) I also bought Holy Warriors a 2 hour PBS dvd documentary about King Richard and Saladin which is a continuation of the story from Kingdom of Heaven. This is an excellent "living documentary" as it uses actors, extras and period costumes to tell the story.

Together, both dvds form a "compete" picture of the history of the crusades. Highly enjoyable and informative.

3) For a more campy film I would suggest Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. It is a pretty good, light-hearted film, and the actor playing the Sheriff of Nottingham is worth the price of the extended version of the picture. Sean Connery also makes an appearance at the end of the film as King Richard.

Kingdom of Heaven was disappointing. The best fight was the one in the forest, the first one. Amazing stuff. If only the other ones had been as good! And then to think they skipped Hattin. What a pity. It just seemed to me there was something important missing. I just wasn't drawn in as I was with Gladiator, for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Kingdom of Heaven was disappointing. The best fight was the one in the forest, the first one. Amazing stuff. If only the other ones had been as good! And then to think they skipped Hattin. What a pity. It just seemed to me there was something important missing. I just wasn't drawn in as I was with Gladiator, for instance.

---

If it seemed a bit short it's because one full hour of movie was cut out of it for the theatre. In the Director's Cut that extra hour will be restored which should flesh out the characters and action more.

Still, I watched the dvd and I still think it is one of the better movies out there. It is big in scope and it's full of atmosphere. The extras on the dvd are also very interesting.

But other's mileage may vary....

Odd, I've never fully seen Braveheart. It actually came on last night on Bravo, but I couldn't be buggered to stay up until 4:00 am in the morning to finish...

Did I just say buggered?:dizzy2:

Rent the dvd of Braveheart - it is worth it. It is one of my top favourite movies along with Spartacus...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pericles

the actor playing the Sheriff of Nottingham is worth the price of the extended version of the picture.

---

Alan Rickman is worth his weight in gold. ~:)

Also, if you don't mind one without much fighting but a lot of personal relationships, The Lion in Winter is an awesome show, though an older one, with Peter O'Toole, Katherine Hepburn, and Anthony Hopkins in one of his first major roles. It's about the interactions between England's Henry II and his formidable family.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Kingdom of Heaven was disappointing. The best fight was the one in the forest, the first one. Amazing stuff. If only the other ones had been as good! And then to think they skipped Hattin. What a pity. It just seemed to me there was something important missing. I just wasn't drawn in as I was with Gladiator, for instance.

---

Hold on, you actually liked gladiator? Besides the beginning battle scene, I really didn't like the movie that much. I dunno, I guess I'm not a Russell Crow person.

I personally always thought Robin Hood: Men in tights was a good movie.
http://www.boldoutlaw.com/images/elwes3.jpg

Has nobody watched "Flesh and Blood"? What a pity...

btw Mens in Tight is probably Brook's worst movie (by far). Even the rather silly "Spaceballs" is a masterpiece compared to it. What a waste for the man who brought us "Young Frankestein", "High Anxiety", "Blazing saddles", "History of the World Part I" and several other really hilarious films

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux

Has nobody watched "Flesh and Blood"? What a pity...

---

Yes indeed I have Rutger Hauer is one of my favorit actors because he really gets into his period acting it seems.



I also liked him in his protrayal of the outcasted captain in Ladyehawk. Not near the thrill of medival battle in that one - but some decent myth busting of Religion was done in a very subtle way.

In the name of the Rose is also another execellent movie in that regards.

There is also the 1961 film El Cid with Charlton Heston, about the 11th Century Spanish leader's attempts to drive the Moors from Spain...

http://charltonhestonworld.homestead.com/ElCid1.html

Saw that one recently, and was pleasantly surprised.

Yes, I saw Flesh and Blood. It was years ago, but I remember liking it very much. Can't really say anything about historical accuracy as it was soooo long ago.

The one with John Wayne as Ghenghis Khan was perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen. "Yes, my mother..." Oh lord.

I still like the Chuck Heston vehicle, El Cid, though I haven't seen it in a while. The ending is cool.

The Lion in Winter is one of my favorite movies, all time. Get the version from the late 60s/early 70s though. There was a recent version with Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close, who you would expect would be quite good (I like them both), but it doesn't come near to the Peter O'Toole, Katherine Hepburn, Anthony Hopkins version. Hepburn won an oscar for her performance, I believe.

And for a 1938 movie, Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky still holds its head high. Look at the way the troops move--in formation--and at the attempts he makes to show the tactics of the battle. Far better than pretty much every recent hollywood movie. And the scene with the Catholic Cardinal tossing babies onto a bonfire is just priceless.

Wasn't there a Henry II movie with Patrick Steward. It doesn't contain much outside the castle but I thought it was a well acted movie about his personal troubles with his wife in particular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Yes indeed I have Rutger Hauer is one of my favorit actors because he really gets into his period acting it seems.



I also liked him in his protrayal of the outcasted captain in Ladyehawk. Not near the thrill of medival battle in that one - but some decent myth busting of Religion was done in a very subtle way.

In the name of the Rose is also another execellent movie in that regards.

---

He is one of my favourite actors, and Ladyhawke is one of my few DVDs... the worst thing about the movie is the electronic score... but apart from that it plays out like a Brothers Grimm tale.

Hauer is excellent in some movies, dross in others. One of his better roles is in Bladerunner.

I'll add a few good medieval flicks to the list:

1) "Alfred the Great" (1969) I saw this movie as a kid on TV, and I've wondered over the years if it was available on video/dvd. It contained an excellent pitched battle between Saxons and Danes... complete with shield-wall and impressive Viking ships. David Hemmings was Alfred. Michael York was a Dane. As I look down the cast list it even contained a young Ian McKellen (Gandalf/Magneto). I haven't seen it in years, but it had a great feel.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064000/

2) "The Sorceress"(1987) A great movie apparently based on the 13th century writings of the Dominican friar Etienne de Bourbon. A young friar arrives at a village to root out heresy and targets a young woman who is the local "healer". I thought "The Sorceress" was a great movie. Excellent attention to detail. Good historical feel. Engaging story that ended up being more complex and interesting than you'd expect from a story about a medieval inquisitor. One of the themes of the movie is the way that the Church came to terms with the traditional religious life of the countryside.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...59165?v=glance

3) "Ivanhoe" (1997) I've enjoyed "Ivanhoe" since I was a kid, and 1997's A&E mini-series didn't disapoint. Well worth a rental. It's several hours long and includes jousting, sieges, trial by combat, Robin Hood, King Richard, Prince John, Saxons and Normans, Jewish-Christian race relations, etc. Great fun. One of the things that I found remarkable about the series is that the screen-writers did change the storyline at places, but did it in such a way that it actually improved the story rather than undermining it (as is usual in Hollywood).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...n=130&v=glance

I'll also add my thumbs up to "Alexander Nevsky" and "The Lion in Winter". Though not really historical, I also love "Excalibur".

As for John Wayne's "The Conqueror"... they filmed that movie somewhere out in Nevada downwind from a nuclear test site. Here's something about the location:

"In 1954, a dust-filled movie called "The Conqueror", starring John Wayne as Genghis Kahn, was shot in this valley, on ground that had been recently subjected to fallout from a series of nuclear tests at the nearby Nevada Test Site (especially dirty at this time was the 1953 above-ground test code-named "Harry", which spread fallout over the down-wind portions of Utah). The contemporaneous death of thousands of sheep has been attributed to the blast, and around half (more than 90, at last count)of the cast and crew of 220 contracted cancer, many of whom died of their illness, including Susan Hayward, the director Dick Powell, Agnes Moorehead, and John Wayne himself. Statistically, this number should have been around 30. Howard Hughes produced the film, and even had some of the soil trucked back to hollywood for use on the set."

From the following link that also has a picture of the location:
http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/UT3174/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Hauer is excellent in some movies, dross in others. One of his better roles is in Bladerunner.

---

The monologue at the end of the movie is great - Hauer delivers it very well

But we digress from the intent of this thread.

I should also add the 1958 movie called The Vikings with Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis:

Some excellent scenery (in the fijords), music, and action sequences, especially when the Vikings storm the castle...

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0052365/

Damn it tool2 [pages before any good ones were mentioned

Quote:

---

There is also the 1961 film El Cid with Charlton Heston, about the 11th Century Spanish leader's attempts to drive the Moors from Spain...

---

One great movie. Also Heston as Michaelangelo is great. No one mentioned Excalibur? ~:confused: I see Ivanhow was finally brought up and the Vikings.

Heres a real sleeper you never hear much about but a great movie

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Quote:

---

The War Lord especially is a rarely noticed and unappreciated film.

Set in Norman-Saxon England, he has been 'awarded' a small fief to hold against Frisans invaders (the same invaders that captured his father and bankrupted his family to ransom him). Tired of war, tired of the struggle, he is more than content with his lot - though not his younger brother, well played by Guy Stockwell. Heston only wants one thing more....the woman, a peasant promised to another. He can take her by right of being the lord, but he wants her heart and a woman's love.

Realisit portrayal of the fuedal person of post Saxon era of the Norman invasion of England, the performances are solid making this one special film, most notable the late Richard Boone (Have Gun Will Travel), one of the most natural actors ever to fill the screen. Solid action and battle scenes.

A must for Heston fans that want more than just the flash, a must for fans of medieval history, and an absolute must if you are a romantic at heart and love knights of auld and damsels in distress.

---

Quote:

---

---

Quote:

---

The fight sequences are a bit long and do not advance the story much but there is a good lesson here about medieval seige warfare - the battering ram, a wonderfully constructed siege tower, catapults and flaming arrows. And in a time when there were no computer enhancements, the battles are well staged and effective.

In summary, the Warlord is an intriguing movie that has a bit of everything. Although it is almost 40 years old, it doesn't seem dated. There is action, adventure and romance, with a little education thrown in.

---

Quote:

---

The costuming and set design are meticulous in detail and period, and the circular castle is marvelous, with an eerie cold atmosphere.
Director Franklin Schaffner (who would work with Heston 3 years later in the box office hit "Planet of the Apes"), keeps the pace rolling with a lot of action, from hot oil poured from the castle tower, to fireball catapults and other medieval methods of warfare. Lovely cinematography by Russell Metty, much of it filmed in Northern California, and a score by Jerome Moross add to the enjoyment of this fine film. Total running time is 123 minutes

---

LINK

Heres the trailer


You have to watch the commercial first .

.
Not the least Medieval but since people are talking Heston: Ben Hur
.

Thanks Gawain, you've convinced me to check that one out--looks cool!

~:cheers:

Looks like there will be a wealth of dvds that are either out now OR will be released in December that will be covering Medieval history and the Crusades.

Check out the link here:

http://www.templarhistory.com/store/aande.html

:charge:

There was this movie with Sean Connery, set in a monastery... it actually reminded me of this place, but the fact is I forgot the movie's name ~;)

Here is a link that has quite a nice long list of Fantasy, Swordplay and Swashbuckling Movies:

http://tinyurl.com/755u6

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

There was this movie with Sean Connery, set in a monastery... it actually reminded me of this place, but the fact is I forgot the movie's name ~;)

---

It was called "The Name of the Rose"

http://tinyurl.com/blbhp

As most movies with the original Bond-man, it was damned good ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

As most movies with the original Bond-man, it was damned good ~:)

---

.
I'm recommended to read the original Umberto Eco book, on which the film was based. Will do it sometime. My Tolkiens have to arrive first. ~:mecry:
.

I'd have to say "El Cid" and "Ivanhoe" are pretty mediocre movies. Both films are run of the mill, formulaic epics laden with stilted dialogue, wooden acting and the usual ahistorical bunk that defines Hollyweird's approach to the genre. This is not to say that both flicks don't sport flashes of brilliance here and there because they do. If you watch both films you can sort of tell where the original writing (and scholarship) ends and the Hollyweird executive interference begins.

The great thing about both films is that they were scored by Miklos Rozsa. I don't know if I can give Miklos high marks for consistent excellence but when he's good, he's really good. Miklos Rozsa is like John Williams, Maurice Jarre and Jerry Goldsmith in that he has a knack for producing memorable soundtrack melodies that run amok in your head whenever you think of a particular film he scored. There are some unbelievably stellar pieces in El Cid, not least of which are the "El Cid March" and "Love theme" tracks. Do yourself a favor and check out the latest release of the El Cid soundtrack by James Sedares and the NZ Symphony Orchestra, it's head and shoulders above the original recording.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p...0:y9s9kextkq7n

"The Lion in Winter" is one of the best Medieval era flicks ever made. Domestic strife played out with the crown of England at stake. Exceptionally good writing with an astonishingly talented cast of actors to boot.

A lesser known Medieval era gem is "The Chimes at Midnight", directed by and starring Orson Welles. Chimes is an offshoot tale of Shakespeare's Henry V and deals primarily with the character of Falstaff. Great direction, dialogue and acting. Combat lovers will love the battle sequences because Welles goes out of his way to avoid showing a pack of inept extras half heartedly hacking away at one another. The battle scenes are surprisingly ferocious and brutal.

Prompted by the thread in the Main Hall, the film Joan of Arc or the Messenger stateside, how accurate is it?
Obviously I don't mean the parts where she's tempted by visions and all that, but the battlescenes, the campaigning, weaponry etc. How accurate was the depiction?