(2012-04-29 01:05:37)

Medieval slaughter-fest!

In this fictionalized tale, a Knight Templar leads a small band of rebels in the defense of Rochester Castle against a mercenary army of Danes in the service of King John.If you want bloody savage Medieval combat, with all the grusome gore that swords, axes, and maces can dish out, ...here it is! The battle scenes are quite graphic, with plenty of shattered skulls, splattered brains, crushed bones, and spraying of blood. And thats what REAL close-quarters fighting with melee weapons was!In the true historical event, there were far more fighting men defending Rochester. An estimated 190 knights held the walls, with all their sargeants and men-at-arms. Naturally, King John would need an even larger army to besiege the castle. At the time, it was considered the largest siege-operation ever carried out in England.Despite the fictional nature of this particular film, it was still a movie I would watch again and again.

Ed Whitfield

(2012-04-28 13:30:49)

English has imbued proceedings with a gratifying brutality; a grubby, washed out, theatre of nastiness...

(2012-04-28 07:58:46)

Seven Samurai in Jolly Old England

"Ironclad" was met with lukewarm reviews from the press upon it's release. I understand their criticisms but it didn't stop my enjoyment one iota.Here's the scoop. In 1215 King John is forced to sign the Magna Carta. He's really upset about this and hires a bunch of Danish mercenaries to take over a strategically positioned castle so he can re-gain the country and treat everybody like crap once again. The problem lies in the fact that said castle is being held by a small band of disparate individuals led by a Knight Templar and they are going to put the monkey in the wrench. Will they hold the castle? Will the French arrive in time to save the day? Will the Templar break his vows and get his ashes hauled by the local damsel? I liked this movie quite a bit. Is it true to history? Probably not, but it's a fun ride nonetheless. When it was originally released in theaters I had reservations about Paul Giamatti as King John. My reservations were unfounded. He's his usual great self and has one scene in particular that is astounding. The rest of the cast is easily as good. James Purefoy as the Templar hit all the right notes for my money. And check out these other names. Brian Cox, Derek Jacobi, Mackenzie Crook, Jason Flemyng, Charles Dance et al are just part of this fine (and expensive) ensemble. This might be an Historical Epic but it's a guy flick through and through. The fight scenes are intense and there are more dismemberments and cleavings than in any ten other movies. Believe you me, this is one gory outing with buckets o' blood. Some objected to the hand held camera work during the battle scenes but it didn't bother me. It's an expensive movie with a really good "look" to it. The final couple of scenes were a bit too 'Hollywood', but by then the movie is over so..... who cares. The music score is great and I liked the script a lot. There are certain scenes, save for those pesky last couple, that were written as well as anything I've seen in any other movie. This might not be for everyone but it's way better than I expected and I could easily see putting this in my library.

(2012-04-27 14:22:06)

"We claim this castle in the name of the rebellion!"

Set in the year 1215, IRONCLAD (UK/USA/Germany-2011) features Derek Jacobi (I, CLAUDIUS) as Reginald de Cornhill (constable of Rochester Castle) and Paul Giamatti (AMERICAN SPLENDOR), who gives an impassioned performance as "evil" King John. Background: at Runnymede, a coalition of barons forced John to sign the Magna Carta, a document that assured certain rights to free men, including protection against arbitrary punishments of the king. According to this highly fictionalized work by writer/director Jonathan English, King John immediately reneged on the Magna Carta's coerced promises. His campaign to retake control of southeast England, with the Pope's blessing and an assist from Danish mercenaries, is disrupted by a handful of men led by a brave knight templar (James Purefoy) who rides a white horse. Their courageous stand at strategic Rochester Castle and keep delay John's advance long enough for help to arrive from France. The rebels were beseiged for months, outnumbered a hundred to one, and most of them perished after a number of battles. The survivors witnessed their liberators' arrival, the scattering of John's forces and his retreat from the field. This all makes for engaging cinema, but reality is quite different.The rebels within Rochester numbered about 100, not thirteen. The baron leading the castle's defense, William d'Aubigny (who's played by Brian Cox and called "Albany" here), wasn't maimed and then brutlly killed. He in fact lived 20 more years and became a loyalist upon the accession of Henry III. Nearly dead from starvation, history says that Aubigny's garrison surrendered to John in November 1215, after a seven week seige. John's hired pagan troops (also incorrect) never fled the field, as depicted in this film. The castle wasn't his for long, however as the barons' new leader, Prince Louis of France, captured Rochester in 1216, but long after its defenders had been removed..IRONCLAD suffers from clichГѓВ©d techniques of modern movie-making, including distorted and spastic camera work during battle sequences, plus an over-reliance on violence and digitally-enhanced gore. Here, broadsword blows split men asunder as if they were pats of warm butter. Wounds are extra-ghastly, yet those "good guys" sustaining them continue doing battle until they're skewered on sword blades like so many shish kebab nuggets.Despite these limitations, and accepting an intentionally inaccurate script, I have to admit I enjoyed this picture, and that's what really matters in the end.

Robbie Collin

(2012-04-27 11:53:11)

THERE comes a time in every great movie-watching experience where a special little moment in the film makes you smile with purest joy. For me, in Ironclad, it was the bit where a guy tears another guy's arm off then beats him to death with it.

(2012-04-26 20:48:16)

Entertaining medieval gore-fest with great actors, but predictable plot and dialogue!

Note, some spoilers follow.Ironclad is your typical formulaic medieval movie; a motley band of brave warriors makes last stand against overwhelming forces led by evil, despotic ruler. Warriors are slowly whittled down to just a few, with the hero and the cleavage-baring princess sharing smoldering glances. Ironclad is unique in the strength of its cast, despite its small budget. You have Brian Cox, James Purefoy (how far he has fallen since Rome!), Derek Jacobi, Jason Flemyng, Paul Giamatti, Charles Dance (plays Tywin Lannister in Game of Thrones), Kate Mara (who replaced Megan Fox), and one of the pirates of the Caribbean who plays a Legolas-type role. Paul Giamatti is entertaining in his over-the-top role as the murderous King John, bent on killing all who forced him to sign the Magna Carta. However, even with the star-studded cast, the storyline is insufficient to keep the movie together. We're left with brutal action sequences, but even the action sequences were only average. They used too much "shaky-cam" footage, leaving this viewer with a slight headache.It's clear that Ironclad takes liberties with historical events, but I do have to give them credit for at least alluding to those historical events. For example, historically, the Rochester Castle keep was undermined with fat from 40 pigs. However, in the movie, whole pigs were burned to undermine the keep (which would have made a delicious barbecue). Historically, King John did cut off the hands and feet of surrendering rebels, and we certainly see that here in rather gory detail. Historically, King John starved the rebels into submission, and in the movie, we do see some effects of starvation.Ironclad isn't an Oscar-winning picture by any stretch, but it's an entertaining movie. Sure, it might be formulaic, but it's fun watching Purefoy hack through scores of woad-like blue Danes with his historically inaccurate five foot long Zweihander. I rate it 3.5 stars (more than generous) because the film tried to push the limits of its small budget.**I had some concerns about the extreme level of gore in the movie. Most of the violence has digital blood added in, but there are several gory bits that one should be aware of. A tongue is chopped off, a limb is repeatedly hacked by a blunt instrument until severed, said severed limb is used to beat another enemy combatant, a man is chopped in half, faces are crushed, a man's collarbone is hacked repeatedly, throats sliced, abdomens opened, hands/feet lopped off, and corpses tossed against buildings. Ironclad is definitely not for the faint of heart.

Robert Abele

(2012-04-24 14:42:54)

The loud, closely photographed limb-hacking becomes as monotonous as the movie's unrelentingly gray palette.

(2012-04-23 21:30:26)

Not quite a true story

I have been waiting for this movie to be released ever since I first heard about it back in 2009. Back then it was supposed to star Megan Fox, but for one reason or another she did not end up making the movie. Also, it was originally supposed to be a theatrical release, not a direct to video release. Despite what the Editorial review says, "Ironclad" is NOT a true story. It is a fictional movie based on historical events. "Ironclad" is based upon the siege of Rochester Castle during the First Baron's War (1215-1217). The war began when King John, having recently signed the Magna Carta, reneged on his promise to abide by the provisions of the documents which would significantly limit his power, and give the nobles the right to override the King at any time using the right of Distraint, and the tenets of The Law of The Land versus the will of the King. In return for his agreement to the Magna Carta, the Baron's had renewed their oaths of fealty to the King. When King John refused to honour the document, the Barons went to war against him. In the movie, the rebels are portrayed as Knights Templar, and King John recruits Scandinavian mercenaries to fight them. This is pure fiction. King John conducted the war himself along with Hubert de Burgh, the Earl of Kent; William Marshal, the Earl of Pembroke; and loyal English knights, no Scandinavians. The rebels were English Barons led by Robert Fitzwalter with support from Prince Louis of France, who subsequently invaded England and was declared King of England by the rebels. Also, King John relied upon starvation rather than combat to force the rebels to surrender Rochester Castle after a siege from October 15, 1215 to November 30, 1215, but two months of starvation would make for a very dull movie.

valleyjohn

(2012-04-20 05:53:58)

Not Bad at all.

Although i'm far from being a royalist , i love reading or watchingabout what our kings and queens got up to centuries ago. Ironclad isthe story of a group of Knights Templars who try to defend RochesterCastle from the forces of King John after he decided to ignore theterms of the Magna Carta that he has only just signed.Although Ironclad isn't totally historically correct , it is still anentertaining enough film and despite it being two hours long i found itan easy watch.This is not a film for the squeamish as it features lots and lots offighting scenes that include decapitation and lopping off limbs andthere are also some scenes involving King John that might well make youwince .Paul Giamatti is as mad as a box of frogs and is perfect as King Johnand the rest of the cast do a fair enough job but what i really likeabout this film is that it really does show you why these castles werebuilt and how difficult it was to penetrate them. Not Bad at all.

Sanna77

(2012-04-19 15:00:56)

Rubbish

This is a violent gratuitous pile of rubbish with no real point to it.Everyone involved should be embarrassed. Don't waste your time.I can give 2 points for the set dressers for not making everyone prettyand shiny.I am required to write 10 lines in order to make a review but it'snearly impossible.The script is bad.The acting is not very good.It appears to have been written by a torture fetishist.The story arc is clichГѓВ©d.The scene where King John tell how mean his Daddy was to him islaughable and meant to make us feel sorry for him and understand hisviolence. Ridiculous

Neil Welch

(2012-04-18 13:05:53)

Mediaeval Magnificent Seven with mud

Seven assorted losers / misfits / warriors are brought together todefend a lost cause against overwhelming attacking forces. However, thesetting here is Rochester Castle, and our defenders are opposing theforces of villainous King John, who is seeking to tear up Magna Carta.Yes, it is essentially the Magnificent Seven again, but everything iscold and wet and miserable and grey and covered in mud.Paul Giamatti is King John. He is an actor I usually like: here he isdemonstrating the I Shout A Lot With An English Accent School ofActing.Brian Cox is Quirky Baron With Anachronistic Turn Of Phrase Who UttersPithy Defiance While Having Limbs Hacked Off.Derek Jacobi plays Dignified Aged Castle Owner With Trophy Wife WhoResents Being Put In This Position Then Commits Suicide For No ApparentReason.James Purefoy is Miseryguts But Valiant Knight Templar Who AllowsHimself To Be Seduced By Trophy Wife But Then The Film Doesn't MakeAnything Of It.Kate Mara plays Trophy Wife Who Remains Incredibly Clean While EveryoneElse Is Covered In Filth. I keep waiting for Kate Mara to have a breakout film - she is both talented and photogenic - but I don't think thiswill be it.Mackenzie Crook plays Legolas Only Not So Clean Or Good Looking OrImmortal.There are lots of fights. Lots of Blood. Much hacking and chopping andgraphic violence. The battle scenes would have been well served withsome action blur: unfortunately, like much digital action, what resultsis a kind of pixillated stop-motion rather than blur.Don't expect the film to explain its title.This film was OK, but no better.

(2012-04-18 02:48:00)

Iron waste of time

Now I do not want to seem too negative, but this film has so much promise but delivered so little.I love historical hack n slash movies, but this film was nothing but cardboard characters who were playing their stereotyped roles to the hilt.The dialogue was suspect in a few places but what really let me down was the idea behind the romantic attraction for a young attractive woman's feelings towards an average guy with no social skills, no sex appeal, no romance and no mystique was laughable - and all the way through the film I just wanted them to hump to get it out the way.It was very much by-the-numbers screen writing and directing, and the fact that it had some well known actors and was by the same studio that did 300 made it all the more irksome.I had no idea why the Danes came into it, when historically they didn't.I have no idea why 1,000 men with war machines for months were unable to storm a keep defended by so few, but of course the reason for this is that historically they didn't even try but instead starved them out. The odds for a typical siege were between 2:1 and 4:1, so 50:1 is so absurd that at that point I wanted to switch off and find something more credible.Overall it was a below average film, mainly because it had the potential to be so much more but it seemed to miss everything that it needed to become a block buster.

Derek Malcolm

(2012-04-10 18:37:59)

Do you laugh or flinch at this sort of thing?

Joe Williams

(2012-04-10 10:51:17)

As a critic who complains about painless and brainless action movies, I hoist a glass of mead to the men and maidens of "Ironclad."

(2012-04-10 09:50:21)

Had potentional but poor direction not lack of money ruined it for me!

I get why people like this movie-given the budget the action when it occurs has a well done realistic POV grittiness-something rarely seen in movies anymore. I also understand why people dislike it-this movie is obviously is not a documentary and it may be offensive to Danish history. However, I dislike this film for another reason: the dire direction, the lack of editing and the poor pacing.This movie is 2 hours but there is 19 minutes collectively of action at the start and 16 minutes towards the end. It would be generous to say there is an additional 25 minutes of screen time that advance the plot, enhance the characters and make the story somewhat interesting. Where the poor directing and pacing comes in is during the 60 minutes of this movie where nothing happens. At the simplest explanation: the good guys of 20 or so men sit in the castle while waiting for the 1,000 bad guys to attack again. Why the bad guys are waiting when it is obvious another 2 or 3 attacks will win the keep is never explained. To sum up how boring the middle of the movie is there is a scene where the good guys are starving while fortified in the castle during the course of the winter months. The bad guys are feasting away merrily every night in front of the castle. The Templar decides to steal their food on a solo stealth mission. For 20 minutes nothing exciting or plot propelling has happened on screen so you would think we are due for some action or intrigue. Nope. Instead we only see 3 bad guys chasing the Templar from a safe distance back into the castle after he steals two sacks of food. Next scene we are back to doing nothing plus now everyone is eating and being merry.What really pissed me off is that this movie is advertised as a Dark Ages version of Magnificent Seven or 13 Samurai. It is not. There is just the one Templar Knight who is too introspective to be relatable on any level above slinging a sword around. The merrymen that accompany him are thinly drawn characters; honorable thieves and ready to brawl bar men who commit their lives, fight clumsily, but don't promote any of the warrior's philosophy that made the 13 Samurai so good. Even 300 had a clear battlefield philosophy which was exemplified thru the character's interactions and circumstances. Here we see our good guys sitting around doing nothing for most of the movie. There is a super silly scene around the 80 minute mark where our supposedly skillful Templar mounts his horse and blindly charges a cluster of armed men in a very tight space. The horse is bombarded and the Templar clumsily falls to the ground at the feet of the arm men who are about to gore the hell out of him. Before that happens the horse regains its balance magically finds space to escape and drags our not so graceful hero to safety. The sheer absurdity of this made me want to press the DVD eject button but regretfully I was committed to seeing this joke of a movie to the end. In all earnest, stronger direction and not more money would have made this movie an instant classic like Braveheart was.

(2012-04-10 00:08:29)

Potent Small Scale 'Braveheart'

One of the better Medieval period-films I've seen. Accurate to the point of being disgusting - and I'm more the pleased for it. Bloody, savage and brutal. No singing, no ridiculous troupes of dancing fools, no Renaissance Faires. This is what it was like: Gray, dingy and grim for the vast majority of people.I'm always amazed at the folks who populate these reenactment camps - happily deceiving themselves by completely ignoring the truth. I want to see a Medieval Festival where urine and feces are randomly dropped onto people - to see streets of mud filled with the same. I want to know that the people there have no dental hygiene as we know it - not even a tooth brush. So how bad do you want to hug someone now? I want to smell headache-inducing amounts of perfume in an attempt to cover up rank body odor. I want to know the dry foodstuffs are infested with mites and grubs, and that the wet foods may or may not be rancid and/or infected with bacterial viruses. Clothes and bodies infested with fleas, skin covered in acne pustules, and a general brutality against the weak.That's partly why I enjoyed 'Ironclad' - it didn't paint a rosy picture. The other reason: Ever since the cancellation of my much-lamented 'Rome', I've been hoping to see James Purefoy again. The guy is serious kick-ass. If there really were a comet-striking-the-earth-event, Purefoy is the dude I'd want to be around. I honestly see him clawing his way to the top of any primitive heap. Particularly enjoyed the story, a good one for once, about the righteousness of the Knights Templar. They've taken a pretty mean beating in the media these past few years - character assassination seven-hundred years after they were betrayed and destroyed. To quote Wikipedia regarding the Chinon Parchments, "It is currently the Catholic Church position that the medieval persecution of the Knights Templar was unjust; that there was nothing inherently wrong with the Order or its Rule; and that Pope Clement was pressured into his actions by the magnitude of the public scandal and the dominating influence of King Philip IV".So 'Ironclad' gives us a look at a true Templar - a holy knight of stout spirit and strong arm; a moral warrior with the clarity that comes from purity of vision. And I'm genuinely gratified to the filmmakers for this honest perspective. And, yes, I get the irony of this story sitting dead-center in the continual revisionist histories of King John.The rest of the ragtag band of warriors reads like an all-star cast of every period film made in the last twenty-years: Brian Cox, Jayson Fleming, Mackenzie Crook, Jamie Foreman, John Pierce Jones, Derek Jacobi and the always enjoyable Charles Dance. Each were superlative in their deliveries; much appreciated and enjoyed. Now to the weaker elements.I honestly cannot see Paul Giamatti as anything other than a strong character actor - I can't - and I've really tried. I like the man! But productions like this proves, at least in my mind, that he's seriously overrated. It's great that a 'regular guy' like him gets to step up and play the big parts (President John Adams comes to mind) but he's just too dang goofy to be believable. And as sincere as his energetic performance was in 'Ironclad', he seemed diminutive in the role. I enjoy his bad guy performances so much more when they're fitted to him - not the other way around. If you get a chance to see 'Shoot 'Em Up', you'll understand what I mean. As a medieval King Of England, he's just not suited.One aspect of his performance that I found intriguing: In the film, both introduction and curtain call for his character, has John standing and staring into shallow water. I wonder why? Reflective introspection?And I still don't get how Kate Mara continually finds herself work. I have nothing against her personally, but she just doesn't connote a leading actress presence. Screened nearly a half-dozen productions with her as both lead and supporting actor - everything screams 'average'. Nothing pops, nothing sizzles. She's reminiscent of watching a kid sister in the school play.Overall, an excellent film done on a small budget. Another $20 million and we would've gotten a larger, more authentic Rochester stage, fuller armies and a bigger splash. But I'm pleased with what they were able to achieve with what they had; filmmakers maximizing their resources is always appreciated.

Chris Cabin

(2012-04-05 12:23:35)

largely disposable

Jason Zingale

(2012-04-04 19:12:07)

It may be rooted in historical fact, but Ironclad is about as likely to be confused for a history lesson on 13th Century England as Gladiator would for Ancient Rome.

Wade Major

(2012-04-02 23:01:25)

Casting is almost uniformly first rate with Cox, Purefoy and the always brilliant Giamatti providing noteworthy standouts.

Tyrone Homes

(2012-04-02 08:26:38)

Should historical inaccuracy ruin a movie?

Oh dear...I've watched enough films to know how this works. Most real life eventsdon't have the requisite drama within real time historic events to makea film work so there is the inevitable 'poetic licence' taken to createthat drama. I have also enjoyed films where the history has been bentand twisted almost beyond recognition (Braveheart). I've also seenothers where the same is done or worse (U-571, The Patriot, etc...) andthe results are less watchable.Ironclad unfortunately fell into the 2nd category. In fact i became soincensed by the lack of historical accuracy i was even angrier thanwhen i watched U-571 where the filmmakers changed a pivotal act in thewar Americanising it for mercenary reasons. It's probably because iremember the events quite well from school where we seemed to study theevents around signing the Magna Carta forever. It is also because thefilm itself strongly portrays itself as depicting true life events somany watching it would take the events portrayed as gospel.In fact the French didn't arrive on English shores until 6 months afterthe events portrayed, and, oh a minor detail, King John didn't die inthe retreat from Rochester. He actually went on into the North of thecountry trapping the armies of the rebel barons in London, defeatingKing Alexander II of Scotland and it was only the intervention of theFrench which turned the tide and he died of an illness on campaignagainst them.Should these changes have annoyed me? Maybe not but if the set-up forthe film hadn't made such a virtue of the events leading up to thesiege, maybe i wouldn't have been so put off. Because at the heart ofthis movie is a medieval 'magnificent 7' that had it been set in ageneric medieval kingdom with a generic medieval king i would haveenjoyed, certainly the action and battle scenes were well done even ifthe shaky cam was a little overused. The stuff away from the battle isa bit mixed as the directing is all over the place but the cast do agood job, with the exception of Paul Giamatti, who i am usually a bigfan of, but just annoyed me for his wholly negative portrayal of KingJohn.I won't be watching this again...