Ironclad
User Score
6.5 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 24 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 24
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 24
  3. Negative: 2 out of 24

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. badrain
    Jul 12, 2011
    2
    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 watchi    ng? Yes, if you like brutal sword fights... because there's nothing more in here.… Expand
  2. Sa5ha
    Feb 23, 2012
    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

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
42 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 14
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 14
  3. Negative: 4 out of 14
  1. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Robert Abele
    Jul 8, 2011
    40
    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.
    Read full review
  2. St. Louis Post-Dispatch
    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.
    Read full review
  3. New York Post
    Reviewed by: Lou Lumenick
    Jul 8, 2011
    63
    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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »