Visitors Review

Sanna77 (2012-05-25 23:04)

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 clichéd.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

(2012-05-25 10:41)

Another Great Medieval Story With James Purefoy

This movie was poised to be something great before it went into production in 2009 - it had greater star power and a bigger budget - but many studios in Hollywood were suffering at the time and so this film eventually lost a lot of its backing. The one who stuck with it was actor James Purefoy, a seriously underrated actor known best for "Resident Evil," "A Knight's Tale," "Solomon Kane," and "Rome." Most of the actors in this movie give their best, but moments of weak dialogue and story cliches prevent this film from becoming anything great. The director deserves the real credit for stretching a pretty narrow budget and making it look incredible on screen.The film is fairly historically accurate in its retelling of the siege of Rochester Castle, a not very well known, but important, turning point in England's history - and the history of the free world. This movie begins right after the signing of the Magna Carta and focuses solely on the defense of Rochester Castle and how only a handful of men stood up against King John's army of thousands to eventually humiliate him.SIDE NOTE: Violence. Holy schmoly! I'm a big fan of medieval films, but even I don't think there's another medieval movie of this stature that is this violent. Not only is it gruesome throughout, but the violence escalates - blood spurts, arms and heads being hacked and hacked until they come off, people being tortured, burned alive. It just doesn't stop in this movie! This is certainly not a film for the easily disturbed.Overall, this is a pretty great flick. It's a strong, satisfying action film, and trust me when I say that you haven't seen anything until you've seen James Purefoy diffuse a hostage situation with a sword!

(2012-05-25 01:00)

Id give it 3 and 1/2.

Good movie but a little gorey. Paul Giamantti does an OK job but overall the acting leaves a little to be desired. A low budget but very informative movie about the Magna Carta. Worth a rent if you like medieval era movies.

MBunge (2012-05-24 08:29)

It's hard to praise this without it sounding like a backhanded compliment

An awful title and even worse marketing probably prevented Ironcladfrom ever having a chance at the box office. I'm not sure if it's doneany better in the video market but this thing is not at all bad. It'ssort of like Braveheart's less attractive, less intelligent cousin. IfMel Gibson's classic is Marilyn Monroe, this film is Jenny McCarthy orShannon Tweed. Sure, in a perfect world you'd rather have Marilyn butwho's going to turn their nose up at those alternatives if you're inthe mood for a blonde beauty? There are brutal combat and fineperformances here, though on a much smaller scale, and the fiction isclose enough to what actually happened to validate its existence.There's a little too much make believe competing with real history,however, and it divides a narrative that needed to be unified.When England's King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 byhis rebellious aristocracy and officially establish the idea that therewere limits to king's power, that may have been the birthing place ofliberty and democracy in the West. Yet, King John was a hateful,miserable father and sought to strangle such new life in the cribbefore it could grow. Magna Carta was not the end of the conflict, asthe English of the day and most history-deficient Americans todaylikely thought. After the signing, his enemies relented and John wasable to reorder his forces and launch a new campaign to restore hisdivine right to rule. Ironclad plays fast and loose with the details ofall that, having King John (Paul Giamatti) recruit an army of Danishmercenaries with a promise the Catholic Church will leave theirhomeland alone and Baron Albany (Brian Cox) gather a medievalMagnificent 6 to thwart John's plans by defending a vital castle untilFrench allies arrive to depose the revengeful monarch.Now, there was a castle siege and the French did get involved, butthat's about all this motion picture gets right. It's close enough,though, for cinema. But unlike Braveheart, which stuck to the basicstory of William Wallace and fictionalized to make it work as a movie,Ironclad devotes equal time to an entirely made up subplot involving aTemplar Knight named Marshal (James Purefoy) and his forbidden love foranother baron's young wife (Kate Mara). Braveheart reimagined Wallaceas an action hero. This film simply makes one up, gives him his ownpersonal story and then inserts him into this page out of Englishhistory. King John being real and Marshal not prevents anything fromworking quite as well as it should.Let me give you an example. The whole deal with Marshal and the baron'swife is about how a Templar's vows forbid him from consorting withwomen. Yet, Marshal stands in rebellion against his rightful liege andin defiance of his Pope, violating the established order of his world.Why would someone like that blanch at breaking yet one more taboo?These filmmakers are trying to enact two diametrically opposedconflicts with the same character and then never connect or fuse themtogether. The stuff with Marshal's love life has nothing to do with thestruggle against King John and a character built to carry one is illsuited to sustain the other.It's as if they weren't confident or didn't know how to make thehistory into an entertaining motion picture, so they just came up withsome stuff up to fill out the script instead of finding more in thetruth that they could embellish. Imagine if Brian Cox had been WilliamWallace, Mel Gibson a fabricated lieutenant and Braveheart had beenevenly split between the two. That is Ironclad.Of course, being not as good as Braveheart is nothing to be ashamed of.The twin tales of this movie are both fairly well told and there'splenty of gore and bodies hacked apart. Albany's band of rebels isentertaining, Kate Mara is pretty sexy and Giamatti amps up the volumeto crystallize the reality of monarchical entitlement and the sovereignas the center of social order. This may be as powerful a portrayal ofhow kings thought and felt as Robert Shaw as Henry VIII from A Man forAll Seasons. Purefoy also smolders manfully and swings a mean sword.I liked Ironclad. Not enough to overlook its flaws, but enough toforgive them. More people should watch this film.

collipal-1 (2012-05-23 15:21)

Not highly memorable, but entertaining

I do not understand the reason of its sudden popularity very well, butI like to see the recent production of some movies with a medievalsubject dedicated to show the brutality from that period combined withinteresting stories. They might be a bit repetitive and comeaccompanied by their own variety of formulas and clichés...but I thinkthey represent a pleasant variation after so many giant robots,tormented superheroes and criminal anti-heroes who have been hoardingthe modern action cinema for a long time. Ironclad is an example ofthis new medieval cinema, and even though I did not find it completelysatisfactory, it kept me entertained and I consider it worthy of amoderate recommendation.Ironclad is an action movie which revels in the brutality from itsfights and in the bravery from its heroes, which uses clichés andarchetypal characters from the action genre. For example, we all knowthe scene in which the bad guy uses the woman as a shield while hethreatens to kill her; so, the hero makes a precise shot which killsthe villain and leaves the woman amazed. In Ironclad we have exactlythat scene (but with swords, obviously), as well as various otherswhich feel pretty trite (another example: the woman tenderly cures thewounds from the hero, while the air fills itself with romance...ugh).Meanwhile, Paul Giamatti is so over-the-top as the villain that heborders the involuntary humor with his performance.As for the heroes, we have a collection of picturesque "misfits" withwell defined personalities, from the templar who is tired of the war tothe ex-soldier who only fights for the money (and the women), withoutforgetting the monosyllabic titan who compensates his short intellectwith a big talent for killing his enemies. The main hero is interpretedby James Purefoy, who makes a very good work in his character, becausehe can express the remorse his character has without the need of words,at the same time he is in a much better histrionic shape than the onehe showed in Solomon Kane, a film with points in common to Ironclad.Brian Cox also makes a solid work as the man who accepts the suicidemission with the pragmatic philosophy of the authentic patriot. On thenegative side, Kate Mara is a bit irritating in her character,something which is exacerbated by the fact that the sub-plot aboutforbidden romance in which her character is involved in feelsunnecessary, and I think that those scenes could have easily beenomitted.Despite my complains, I had a good time while watching Ironclad becauseof the well filmed action scenes, the interesting screenplay and somegood performances.

david-sarkies (2012-05-23 05:26)

This is what King John did next

This movie is about the siege of Rochester Castle in England. RochesterCastle is a castle that lies to the east of London (and while I saw asign pointing to it as I was traveling out to London to get toCambridge, I didn't realise the significance, nor did I have to time,to visit it). It is said that it is the last main fortification beforean invading army (usually coming from either Dover of Thanet) reachesLondon, and from them has access to the rest of England (the problem isthat coming from the Southwest, you cannot circle around London fromthe west as the Thames Estuary is in the way, and you don't want tomove around a fortified position since any enemy holding that positioncan them make hit and run attacks against you from the relative safetyof the castle). Therefore, anybody marching from London from theSouthwest has to secure this castle before they can look at taking outthe capital.Anyway this movie is set just after King John was forced to sign theMagna Carta. Now, as the movie indicates at the beginning, we all knowabout the Magna Carta (or I hope we do) but we are not really aware ofwhat happened after. Many of us think that the war was foughtbeforehand, John lost and was forced to sign the Magna Carta, and afterthat everything was rosy with a king that had practically been strippedof most of his tyrannical powers. However this is not the case. Whatreally happened was that there was a rebellion and the rebels had takenLondon, and to pacify the rebels (and to buy himself some time) KingJohn agreed to sign the Magna Carta. However he had not intention ofkeeping his word.Thus, after the Magna Carta had been signed, and the Barons had stooddown, King John picks up a group of mercenaries near Dover and begins amarch on London. However to march on London means going throughRochester, and the Barons, who were still in the process of mobilisingtheir troops, were only able to send a skeleton force to Rochester.Now, to cut a long story short, King John captures Rochester after along and bloody siege, and then moves on to capture London, and thenmoves north to pacify the barons. While this is happening, the FrenchKing lands in England, and when King John hesitates to confront Louisin open battle, many of his loyal followers desert, and King John endsup dying an ignoble death fleeing from his enemies.This is not quite what this movie is about. It is about the siege ofRochester Castle, but it seems to suggest that King John failed to takeRochester (which is not true, as the occupants of the castle ended upsurrendering, and John then proceeds to execute them, after torturingthem), and that Louis arrived just in time to break the siege. As isindicated above, this is not how the events panned out. However, thisis not a bad movie, with lots of bloody battles and tries to recreatemany aspects of the siege (including blowing up a corner of the castleusing pigs, a common siege tactic in those days). However, it is one ofthose events that we should try to remember, as it is one of thoseperiods in which the European people began to move away from tyrannyand towards democracy.

vasile palade (2012-05-23 11:32)

another so called historical movie

Well..let me be straightforward and tell it from the beginning: i likethis movie. Maybe because Scott's Robin Hood was disappointing. Maybebecause the team behind was bold enough to try making an indie movieable to play in the big league. Maybe because they had the good idea tobring several actors from the British School (both theater and movie).Maybe because they had the good idea to end the old tradition anddepict war as gruesome as it is. No guts no glory.Several damaging issues might count for the missing 3 stars in my vote(7/10) - the shaky camera - too simple screenplay - the crumblingcastle (really people...was not there any better idea to "allow" thedanish mercs entering the castle than a herd of pigs put on fire? ) -Speaking about the Danish Mercs. Why were they speaking modern Magyar?Was this movie supposed to be played only in US ? If an medieval Norsespeaking consultant might be hard to be found i would expect findingfew modern Danish speakers to make the voice overs. Should't be thatexpensive. By the way, the Magyar language is related somehow with theFinish language but no way with any Scandinavian languages (Norse,Swedish, Danish)

michaelintp (2012-05-22 15:33)

Suspenseful, Great Acting, Awesome Cinema

Both my adult son and I greatly enjoyed the film. Whether historicallyaccurate or not is not really the point.The most accurate adjective to describe the film is INTENSE. We werekept on the edge of our seats. The battle scenes give you the sensethat you are in the horrible thick of things. You honestly don't knowwho will survive and who will not ... or if any will at all.There are aspects of moral ambiguity portrayed in the film. Not onlywith regard to physical battle, but also with regard to one's moralbattle with carnality.Quality acting in the film as well. We particularly enjoyed KingGiamatti's tirades.Don't know if I would like the film were I were a Dane, though. (wink)

Tyrone Homes (2012-05-21 23:27)

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...

Anthony Quinn (2012-05-21 04:08)

It's a persuasive portrayal of a violent era and its harsh privations.

Tim Robey (2012-05-20 23:34)

Should be a perfectly solid basis for a medieval gorefest, but there's something inescapably Holy Grail-ish about the clueless staging.

lewiskendell (2012-05-20 03:23)

A bloody siege.

Ironclad is a fictionalized medieval war movie set in Britain duringthe second rebellion against King John, brought about by his dismissalof the Magna Carta he was forced to sign in the first rebellion againsthim and his attempts to punish those who forced him to sign it. The movie is basically about a Templar and a small group of soldierswho are attempting to hold Rochester Castle, the key to southernEngland, against the siege of John's superior army and Danishmercenaries. Ironclad is nothing special, but it's entertaining enough.There are a few faces you'll probably recognize among the cast, likeBrian Cox, Paul Giamatti, and Kate Mara. I doubt any of the actors oractresses will be up for many awards (though Giamatti, as King John,does get a memorable scene or three), but they do good enough jobs thatI had no complaints. The look of the film is reminiscent of other recent similarly setaction movies, like Black Death and Centurion. Very bleak, grey, andviolent. Blood splashes all over the place during the frequent battlescenes, limbs are hacked off, and gaping wounds abound. This isn't amovie for the squeamish.As I mentioned before, Ironclad isn't a huge step forward for this kindof film, but it succeeds well enough at what it attempts to do for meto give it a positive review. See it, if you're interested. 

Fred Topel (2012-05-19 18:11)

Would be forgivable for a genuine first timer, but Johnny English has directed before and produced enough to know the business. If you get production value and an A-list cast together, you've got to get your act together.

(2012-05-19 14:21)

Low budget awesomeness

This movie was actually really good considering its budget and lack of public spotlight. It has some excellent action throughout the film, gets to the point and doesn't stray. I give it a thumbs up for people wanting to relax and watch some good ol violence.

Christopher Tookey (2012-05-18 13:32)

Ironclad desperately wants to be a historical blockbuster along the lines of Braveheart. Sadly, it has more in common with Monty Python And The Holy Grail.

(2012-05-18 02:23)

Flawed Hack and Slash

The historical premise of the movie is a good one: it is 1251, and King John of England is out for bloody revenge after being forced to sign the Magna Carta. As he murders his way across southern England, a stubborn baron seizes the strategically important Rochester Castle with a handful of men and vows to hold it until French forces arrive to break the back of King John's army. Sounds good, right?Helping the solid premise along is a cast including such heavy hitters as James Purefoy (HBO's Rome), Brian Cox (Troy's Agamemnon), and Paul Giamatti (HBO's John Adams). With a cast like that you just know the acting is going to be great, and in this regard Ironclad does not disappoint. James Purefoy is particularly good as the morose Templar Knight Thomas Marshal, a man who has seen too much bloodshed and desires to leave his Templar Order for good. And, needless to say, the always excellent Paul Giamatti is no disappointment here either and quickly steals the show as the enraged King John. Brian Cox rounds out the key characters with his typically bombastic performance as the rebelling Barron Albany, the fly in King John's ointment.With only the briefest of introductions, the movie breathlessly careens into the siege of Rochester, where Marshal and Baron Albany enlist the aid of the castle's small compliment of rank and file defenders, along with a medieval dirty dozen - well, really just a half dozen - made up of a motley bunch of mercenaries, including such tired stereotypes as a good natured wildman, an uncontrollable letch, a stone-cold killer...yawn. It isn't long before the perpetually annoyed King John arrives and begins laying siege to the castle.What follows is bloody mayhem as the defenders desperately repel one attack after another with abundant carnage (with a subtitle of `Blood. Will. Run.', who would have thunk it, right?). Leading every fight is Purefoy's Templar killing machine who mows down every opponent with the unstoppable fury of a medieval Terminator. As someone who has become increasingly frustrated by Hollywood's insistence on ridiculously extravagant ninja swordplay, it was nice to see the same treatment finally lavished on a medieval knight. Purefoy's character flashes into battle with a great sword that literally hacks opponents in twain, and who moves with such grace that it all makes for a fascinating ballet of death. What is more, it serves to make Marshal's background as an elite Templar crusader all the more believable. This aspect alone had the potential to make this movie a refreshing take on the often staid presentation of medieval warfare that usually involves unimaginative swordplay. I thank Ironclad for finally giving the medieval knight his fare share of martial prowess.Ironclad also helps shatter the oft all too clean presentation of medieval warfare by splashing around buckets of gore (again, that `Blood. Will. Run.' hint). Limbs are chopped off (and then used to beat another over the head...seriously!), heads are smashed, torsos cleaved in two...it is truly grisly gore right out of a horror movie. In fact, I got the distinct impression that director Jonathan English was watching Kill Bill Vol. 1 one night and said, "Hey, let's make the same type of bloody movie, but set in a Braveheart-like setting!" Ironclad even goes for a Kill Bill spaghetti western presentation in more than one scene.Unfortunately, there are two flaws in this film that I felt really dragged down would should have been an otherwise solid war film; flaws that are becoming so prevalent with this genre that I am starting to really, really sicken of it.The first flaw is - you guessed it - the ahistorical nonsense that fills this film, from King John's use of pagan Danish mercenaries (who are led by Vladimir Kulich, reprising his Viking role from The Thirteenth Warrior), to...well, I can't tell you about the real end of the siege of Rochester versus what happens here. These major inaccuracies really bug me and here's why: while it is common knowledge that many history films are littered with such ahistorical nonsense, I have found that medieval films in particular are wildly inaccurate to an extent that I find downright disrespectful to the period. Be it El Cid, Braveheart, or now Ironclad, they all take an actual historical event or person as its starting point, and proceed to so twist it that it actually disfigures the actual history to the point that it is almost unrecognizable. And don't give me that lame excuse often uttered by lazy scriptwriters and directors about how it is impossible to make a historically accurate film and still keep it entertaining. That is bunk, and I am sorry to see the public parroting such a specious line of reasoning. Truth is: real history is just as entertaining - and I believe more so - as the fabricated and banal faux history coming out of Hollywood, especially when it comes from this thoroughly fascinating era of European history. No, what is going on here is a combination of laziness and sheer historical indifference, and I, for one, am just sick of it. If you're going to make a history film, bloody well make a history film, or just dispense with the whole "based on actual events" nonsense!My second big flaw concerns the central character of Thomas Marshal, the Templar knight. Before I even saw the movie, I knew exactly how Marshal was going to be portrayed: as a disillusioned crusader who begins to question his faith. Well, not five minutes in and we're introduced to Thomas Marshal: a disillusioned crusader who begins to question his faith. Sigh. This is such a trite idea that it has not only been used by earlier films, but also by video games (when your plot resembles something found in a video game, you're going down the wrong path). It is also particularly silly. What I mean by that is this: Marshal is supposed to be part of the elite of the elite, a crusading Templar dedicated to holy warfare, right? So what are we to believe, that Marshal went through years of rigorous and sophisticated training (btw: the Templars excelled at training for war during this period, all without relying on Roman material no less), only to be shocked by the violence of it all? Somebody really thought this was a believable plot line? Truth is, this is less a reflection of the attitude of professional soldiers - then and now - and more about the modern entertainment industry's inability to accept the idea that tough wars are often fought by men much tougher than those found inside a movie studio. Not everyone is a navel-gazing crybaby, guys.But it gets even more predictable. Shortly after Marshal gets to Rochester castle, we discover that the castle's elderly Lord Cornhill (Derek Jacobi) is locked in a loveless marriage with the ravishing Lady Isabel (played by Kate Mora). Again...here we go with a trite theme so obvious that I suspect everyone but the dimmest of the dim saw what was to come: that Isabel would fall head over heels in love with the manly but chaste Marshal, forcing him to betray his vows or lose the love of Isabel. And that is exactly what happens, and with little rhyme or reason other than someone clearly decided that there MUST be a love interest in this movie no matter how superficial or ham-handed it would seem. And while it is true that we do get to see Marshal initially resist the temptress, eventually he just gives in to Isabel's endless anti-clerical sermonizing (pun) about how the Templars have twisted his manhood and robbed him of happiness. Marshal does initially defend his order, reminding the fatuous Isabel that but for the training the Templars have given him, she and all in Rochester Castle would already be dead, but that bit of logic never penetrates her thick skull. But here is where it gets so bizarre that I almost chocked on my popcorn: after urging Marshal to break his vows, to turn his back on his order, and even more incredibly, engage in adultery, Isabel self-righteously states "I am not sin" when Marshal still has some reservations. Seriously? I mean, if she isn't the living embodiment of sin, no one is! It is simply incredible that neither the screenwriters, nor the director or the actors, had the wit (moral compass?) to realize the incredible hypocrisy in her statement. A woman urges a man to turn his back on every vow he has ever made, yet we are to see her as some sort of champion of purity and wisdom? Really?!? It reminds me of the incredible moral blindness seen in Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, where Balian murders a priest, leads three dutiful lawmen to their death, flees to a foreign land and promptly has an affair with the wife of his host, and yet is still proclaimed the righteous hero. Unfortunately, we have the same immorality championed here (we live in scary times, people).I found Isabel's incredible statement to be so idiotic, that I figured the movie had a card up its sleeve; that Isabel was a metaphor, an Eve to Marshal's Adam, and that after tempting him into sin, Marshal would either meet a tragic end (even if he won the battle, he would still lose the war, so to speak), or he would rediscover his faith, move on from Isabel and return to the Templars, all the better for having faced his doubts. Nope. That would be too original, I suppose.In the end, it is just plain idiocy in the script. Like my earlier comment about how the entertainment biz sees every soldier as a self-doubting wimp, this is an example of how every modern movie sees religion and faith as foolish nonsense that is best dispensed with via some cleansing hedonism. Again, I am sick of this threadbare post-modernist nonsense that appears in every medieval film. Hey guys: if you don't like the Catholic morality of the Middle Ages, then spare us your medieval films because all you ever accomplish is to butcher the period's history, and engage in some tedious, anti-religious blackface theatre. And, quite frankly, it is so tiring at this point that it is not even offensive, just really, really amateurish in the fashion of the old "the butler did it" saw. Could we at least get some fresh bigotry? Or, if you're feeling adventurous, perhaps we could actually get a movie where the main character is exactly what he appears to be? You know, authenticity? That would seem to be more realistic, and less cynical, too. But I guess that would be too daring for any filmmaker these days.BTW: In light of the above, consider this: there is a scene in the film where we get to see Giamatti's King John take some very bloody revenge on the rebels. Afterwards, a blood spattered John makes a very impassioned speech about the necessity of brutality in keeping order. Sympathy for the devil? Certainly seems so. Is immorality the theme of Ironclad? You decide.As it stands, Ironclad is a blood-filled medieval-themed action film that takes it cues from the like of Kill Bill Vol. 1. With that in mind, I suspect once it hits Spike TV, or whatever your local trash TV network happens to be, it is going to quickly develop a cult following...and not without good reason. Honestly, it is a fun hack and slash war film. Unfortunately, it could have been so much more. By resorting to historical inaccuracies for no good reason, and by indulging in anachronistic anti-religiosity, the movie needlessly stumbles into addle-brained mediocrity. Shame, because its better points otherwise might have carried this film into a loftier status. Still, all things considered, it is a sufferable film that should please anyone who liked The Thirteenth Warrior, Kill Bill or similar fare. Give it a try but keep your expectations spaghetti western low. If you do that, you might just enjoy it.

chicagopoetry (2012-05-18 01:32)

Not A Bad Epic

At first, when I saw a promo for it, I thought this movie was going tobe a parody, like Meet the Spartans, I mean, seriously? A movie calledIronclad starring the dude from Sideways? It was actually a user reviewhere at IMDb that was totally ripping on it, describing a scene inwhich a guy beats another guy over the head with a severed arm, thatconvinced me to give it a chance. I'm glad I did. It's definitely not acomedy and Paul Giamatti seriously gives it his all as a slimy king whothinks torturing people is the only way he can remain in power. Thereal thing Ironclad has going for it, among so many other medievalsword fighting epics, is its brutality, so I'm wondering why it didn'tgo a few steps farther and be the Caligula of our times. Don't get mewrong, it's plenty brutal. People get sliced in half, arms and feet arecut off, heads get hit with iron balls and splatter all over the place.Actually though, there is a nice combination of gory battle scenes andhokey Shakespearean drama. I think what would have helped the plot isif our rag tag group of twenty men fighting against an army of athousand actually had a plan. That's what made great battle movies likeBraveheart or Seven Samurai so intriguing, knowing that the underdogscould actually outwit their opponents. But here it's just brutestrength and it's not always convincing. I mean, they knew the armywould eventually come through that door, so why not dig a big pitbehind it filled with poison spikes or a pool of acid or something? Butoverall, for a two hour movie, I have to admit, I wasn't bored once,and when I got interrupted in the middle of it, I was anxious to getback to it. Ironclad was a pleasant surprise, and when I say pleasant,I mean the type of pleasant during which a priest gets his tongue cutoff or a guy gets an ax shoved into his crotch. That type of pleasantsurprise, you know? Oh, and also hokey lines like, "I fight, so thatyou don't have to," offering some unintended laughs between the hot tarsplashed in people's faces.

Robert Abele (2012-05-17 12:08)

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

Jizdenky (2012-05-16 18:02)

Sillinessclad

Shot like an action blockbuster period piece with some historicalbackground, 'Ironclad' is pretty much another typical medievalaction-flick filled with clichés. The one thing that sets this oneapart is the visceral violence. It's definitely as graphic as whatyou'll see in videogames and B-movies about zombies. The fights arequite well choreographed. It does remind one sometimes as though theyare watching an episode of 'The Deadliest Weapon'. It's very easy topredict which characters will die and who will live by the end. Let'sforget about historical accuracy for that is almost rare in movies thatwere intended to be blockbusters. The start is very slow. Not only isthe writing of the story bad, but so are the characters. As such theactors aren't given much to do. That said, Giamatti does stand out in afew sequences and Purefoy is stiff throughout. His Marshall isunintentionally funny. How convenient that he's unconscious only whenhis mates are being hacked off and then by the end he gainsconsciousness...only for it to happen again so that his surviving matesare butchered so that he can rescue the heroine and Frodo. AneurinBarnard's Guy is portrayed as a medieval Frodo. As bad as it is,barring the first fifteen minutes, it could be entertaining if watchedas cheap fun treating it like one of those movies that are bad enoughto be fun.

Dominic Radcliffe (2012-05-16 02:29)

If it had been irony clad it might have been better.