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

User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 37 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • 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
    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: Wade Major
    Jul 5, 2011
    Casting is almost uniformly first rate with Cox, Purefoy and the always brilliant Giamatti providing noteworthy standouts.
  3. Reviewed by: Lou Lumenick
    Jul 8, 2011
    A long way from his TV portrayal of John Adams, Giamatti seems to be having an especially good time as a splenetic King John, who would not be out of place in a Monty Python movie.
  4. Reviewed by: Nick Pinkerton
    Jul 5, 2011
    While Ironclad captures the casual cruelty and flesh-and-bone violence of the 13th century, it fails to do the same in the more intimate material set in the downtime between assaults.
  5. Reviewed by: Robert Abele
    Jul 8, 2011
    Though the hambone acting quotient is high (and not necessarily unenjoyable), the loud, closely photographed limb-hacking becomes as monotonous as the movie's unrelentingly gray palette.
  6. Reviewed by: Leslie Felperin
    Jul 5, 2011
    Ironclad might be the perfect actioner for gorehound fanboys gaga for medieval trappings, but all others may find this British-American-German co-production a bit of a drag.
  7. Reviewed by: David Fear
    Jul 5, 2011
    This bloody, messy action film devolves into a plain ol' bloody mess.

See all 14 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 14
  2. Negative: 1 out of 14
  1. Oct 19, 2014
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Great action movie, based in a real events, maybe is not with top actors of the media, but great actors, great action, we learn some history at least this movie makes sense, lately I have been disappointed with movies like the last Hunger Games, waist of money to watch, just makes no sense in the end. This movie have sense at least, well done. Expand
  2. Dec 3, 2013
    There is much more to be taken from this movie than people think. Not only that, but Paul's performance as King John captured the energy of a king perfectly. Movies aren't all about images, they are about feelings and moods, and conveying those to the viewers. To say this is just another action movie is a complete fallacy.

    Not only is it great fun to watch, it is down right terrifying at times. That danish commander is a scary man, and you even get to see life from his point of view at one point, if even just for a second. There is much to learn from the templar.
  3. Jan 1, 2013
    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
  4. Jul 19, 2011
    Hey if you are a friend of crusader age warfare and a LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTT of sword fighting with blood this is your movie otherwise.............. Expand
  5. Mar 31, 2013
    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
  6. Feb 27, 2012
    Poor plot, seeing this type of films in a row, may drop my score under the "5". Still has good points like the scenography, the characters are pretty weak in all sense, but the best thing as I've read in other comments, is tha massive amount of action in the sword fight sense. If you like the medieval type film the is worth giving it a shot... but apart from this, a film that can be skipped with no problems (TV maybe) Expand
  7. Jul 12, 2011
    James Purefoy did his best in "Solomon Kane", but in this movie - he's blank.
    Oh, well. In the other hand, no one really ACTS in this movie..
    But poor acting is not the only problem. Its historically inaccurate and naive. Believe me, you dont have to be a history scholar to notice it.
    And it becomes really annoying, if you actually know something about medieval ages. Is it worth watching? Yes, if you like brutal sword fights... because there's nothing more in here.

See all 14 User Reviews