Metascore

Mixed or average reviews - based on 14 Critics What's this?

User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 24 Ratings

  • Starring: Brian Cox, Jason Flemyng, Paul Giamatti
  • Summary: A ragtag group of Knights Templar hold out for months against the hard-fought siege of Rochester Castle in the thirteenth Century. Set in the time of King John's signing of the Magna Carta treaty, the group struggles against the King to defend the freedom of their country. (Arc Entertainment)
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 14
  2. Negative: 4 out of 14
  1. Reviewed by: Joe Williams
    Jul 8, 2011
    75
    As a critic who complains about painless and brainless action movies, I hoist a glass of mead to the men and maidens of Ironclad.
  2. Reviewed by: Kim Newman
    Jul 5, 2011
    60
    Like all sieges, this offers moments of choppy terror and excitement followed by dull sit-it-out-and-starve spots. Straddled between uproarious schoolboy tosh and serious historical movie, this still offers enough dismemberments, royal tantrums and portcullis-rammings to make for a lively Saturday night out.
  3. Reviewed by: Sam Adams
    Jul 7, 2011
    58
    The movie's gathering of third-rank action heroes provides sufficient brawn but precious little onscreen charisma, although Brian Cox's reliable bluster lights up his handful of scenes as a bellicose baron.
  4. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    Jul 7, 2011
    38
    As history it's bunk; as inappropriate historical fiction, it's awfully close to comedy.

See all 14 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 11
  2. Negative: 1 out of 11
  1. This is one of my favourite movies of all time, despite what others say. It has many of the aspect of Braveheart, although it focuses much less on freedom and the rights of the people (though that's the main storyline) and much more on the actual combat. The combat scenes here are great; there's so much decapitation and blood and cleaving people in half. This, for me, balances out any subpar-ness of the plot. It's like when you're playing something like Skyrim--when you've jumped on top of a dragon and are pounding its skull with an enchanted mace, do you really care why you're doing it? Expand
  2. What can I say this is a fun movie. If you blood and gore this movie is for you, but if you like movies with well thoth script and hakespeareansacting skip this one. Expand
  3. A Siege in the dark ages was probably very much like it was in this film: much waiting, starving, boredom interspersed with moments of extreme bloody violence. For the 25m$ budget they got a decent cast and nice landscapes but you can tell that there weren't many extras to save on crowd duplication VFX shots and also to save on costumes. This causes the film to miss the epic scale that siege battles need. Maybe I'm a bit harsch for this film, it's good fun, but they should have made it a bit shorter (about 15 mins) to keep the pace flowing. Expand
  4. 4
    In the genre of action adventure, Hollywood has earned a reputation of painting idealized realities for viewers to delve into. Realities that depict virtuous heroes, worthy adversaries, adequate character development, enlightened conclusions, and the triumph of good over evil. This brief combination of themes and techniques offers viewers glimpses into ideal worlds. The films Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, and Robin Hood are just a few which more often than not follow this basic outline, earning audience's admiration and love in regards to the heroes and heroins and the film's ideological pursuits and conclusions. In comparison to the a fore mentioned films, Ironclad paints a more brutal and realistic picture of medieval life and warfare, focusing more so on brutal action than on plot and character development which is nearly non existent and comically terse. The audience primarily, and almost singularly, receives a rich visual experience of what weapons can actually do to the human body while also not receiving the privilege of well rounded developing characters. The heroes don't survive battles with merely a scratch to the head or a cut to the arm, but rather with life threatening gashes and blows that gush fatal amounts of blood. It nearly appeared that the director of the film was eager to discover just how many different ways a sword can slice and puncture a human body. The visual experience is not romantic, nor heroic and certainly not for the faint of stomach. Even the hero of the film explains that it is not a "noble" thing to kill a man and we as viewers quickly understand why nobility is not a direct product of bloodshed. With the film primarily focusing on brutal battles and nearly not at all on maintaining the human interest side to the story, the end result seems unbalanced and incomplete. At times, the film offers viewers an occasional comically serious scene between one note characters which ultimately hints to the film's desperate attempt not to forget that there are actually characters involved in the bloody event. This stark contrast between Ironclad and other medieval films such as Gladiator, brands Ironclad as incomplete, desperate, and unbalanced while films like Gladiator are rich, balanced, and complete while being inspirational. On the flip side however, Ironclad offers something that very few films do: an honest education on the grim and vicious reality of war. In this respect, Ironclad has, dare I say, nobly shed the fantastical curtain of Hollywood and offered audiences true reality, communicating that nobility is obtained from a "life serving others" rather than killing and dominating on the battlefield. This conclusion is sobering as it is refreshing, for not all adventures are as decorated and dynamic as that of Gladiator. Lastly, I must honestly state that after viewing this film, any office working man who secretly dreamed of being a medieval knight would seriously reconsider his fantasy for one that did not nearly guarantee to rip him to shreds. Expand

See all 11 User Reviews

Trailers