Instead of trying to portray real historical events, Hollywood instead opts for a fictitious story set in the England of Henry IV. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Unusually for Hollywood, they actually make an effort to get things right historically, and broadswords are used as broadswords and not as rapiers. The weaponry and military techniques are pretty OK for a Hollywood film, and are, on the whole, accurate.
The fight sequences are very exciting and, along with the training methods, are probably the best bits of the film.
As to Tony Curtis's accent. Well, we have in Geoffrey Chaucer an authentic idea of what the English language in London was like in the early 15th century. It is ridiculous to write the script in Chaucerian English - not if you want to fill the cinemas, at any rate. Compare Tony Curtis in Black Shield with Olivier in Henry V. Is Olivier's accent any more correct or authentic? This is not the deepest film ever made, but there is plenty to enjoy about it.
The fight sequences are very exciting and, along with the training methods, are probably the best bits of the film.
As to Tony Curtis's accent. Well, we have in Geoffrey Chaucer an authentic idea of what the English language in London was like in the early 15th century. It is ridiculous to write the script in Chaucerian English - not if you want to fill the cinemas, at any rate. Compare Tony Curtis in Black Shield with Olivier in Henry V. Is Olivier's accent any more correct or authentic? This is not the deepest film ever made, but there is plenty to enjoy about it.