It all depends on whether you are saying 'it was a fun thing to watch' or 'it was a good historical movie.'
Good historical movies are hard to come by. I am often just happy to find one that has a semi-decent 'feel' because the details are rarely any good, especially concerning warfare.
I enjoyed the feel of the warfare in Gladiator. Even the way it was filmed, most accurately represented to me the sensations you go through in an extended combat scenario - the supernaturally crisp and clear, degrading into the blur and the muffled silence, then the detatched slow-motion.
Braveheart would have been OK but it was just SO FAR OFF about everything I couldn't get over it. I could go on forever about details like the woad being about 1000 years off base, and the princess really being about 12 and in France at the time, and Piers Gaveston (the prince's lover) was not a limp wristed poof but the most unbeatable combat god of his age and not about to be pushed out of any window...
But the main thing, for the purpose of this thread, was that they couldn't even put the Battle of Stirling Bridge on a bridge. They put it in a field. I mean, really? Can't even give us that?
