How do the battle scenes stack up against Braveheart?

[Balrog_of_Morgoth]

I just watched Braveheart for the first time this week. I was a little apprehensive because I was afraid it would blow away the battles in FOTR and TTT.

Thankfully this is not the case in my opinion. Braveheart was allowed a little more graphic type scenes, but they really were not much more gruesome than FOTR and TTT. A great feat considering they were restrained by a PG-13 rating.

One thing that did really stand out though, is that the use of pikes in Braveheart was very realistic. That showed the glaring weakness in the TTT Helms Deep scenes. The charge of Gandalf and that of Aragorn and Theoden from the entrance of Helms Deep seem quite unrealistic in comparison. It would have been nice to see a few horses taken down and riders thrown from their mounts in those scenes.

All in all, I think FOTR and TTT are outstanding. It is fantasy, so you have to ready to believe some fantastic things possible.

[Insidious Rex]

I think the battle scenes in Braveheart were unprecidented. You could tell they really had some serious middle age battle consultants on the set because they focused on so many little things that you dont usually see in movies. Im still floored every time I watch some of those intricate battle scenes. yes horses should be dieing (unfortunately) or else its just unrealistic. and there should be definite strategy involved not just the heroes leaping into battle. I also thought some of the legion fight scenes early on in Gladiator were pretty accurate too. and the helter skelter camera work was brilliant.

[Millane]

i think the start battle from GoNY was absolutely awesome in terms of which would best fight scenes in lotr...
werent the uruks a bit astounded when the rohirrim and gandalf charged down and actually lifted there pikes?
i think there was stratergy enough.... the uruks were being fenced in and attacked on both sides.

[Nurvingiel]

I think the battle scenes in Braveheart, Gladiator, FotR and TTT were all equally well done, but just in different ways. Except, in Gladiator, the Romans mainly used mercenaries for cavalry at this point, but that belongs in a different forum.

Braveheart was much more gruesome than LotR, and therfore had a higher rating (18A?) Case in point:

When the young William Wallace discovers the bodies of many of his clansmen hanged in a barn, or how he's tortured and executed at the end!

I think LotR should have a 14A rating, because the battles were still pretty hard core.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I think LotR should have a 14A rating, because the battles were still pretty hard core.

Whats all this rating stuff? How does it work exactly?

[Nurvingiel]

Well in Canada all major movies are reviewed by the Canada Council, and they apply certain standards to give advice on which age of person should see the movie and why. In Canada, people are generally anal about anything to do with sex, and almost non-chalant about violence. (I'm only talking about movies here.) So this panel of people might decide that because of violence and swearing in a movie, only people age 14 and up can see it.

I think that because LotR is pretty violent and bloody, and people die, it should be recomended for kids age 14 and up, but parents can excercise their judgement and take younger kids to see it.