X
- 2011
- R
- ARC Entertainment (II)
- 2 h 1 m
- 2011
- R
- ARC Entertainment (II)
- 2 h 1 m
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)
Directed By: Jonathan English
Written By: Erick Kastel, Stephen McDool
- 2011
- R
- ARC Entertainment (II)
- 2 h 1 m
- 2011
- R
- ARC Entertainment (II)
- 2 h 1 m
Ironclad
42
6.7
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)
Directed By: Jonathan English
Written By: Erick Kastel, Stephen McDool
Top Cast
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 14 Critic Reviews
42
21% Positive
3 Reviews
3 Reviews
50% Mixed
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
29% Negative
4 Reviews
4 Reviews
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 14 Critic Reviews
42
21% Positive
3 Reviews
3 Reviews
50% Mixed
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
29% Negative
4 Reviews
4 Reviews
As a critic who complains about painless and brainless action movies, I hoist a glass of mead to the men and maidens of Ironclad.
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.
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 52 User Ratings
6.7
52% Positive
27 Ratings
27 Ratings
37% Mixed
19 Ratings
19 Ratings
12% Negative
6 Ratings
6 Ratings
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 52 User Ratings
6.7
52% Positive
27 Ratings
27 Ratings
37% Mixed
19 Ratings
19 Ratings
12% Negative
6 Ratings
6 Ratings
[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]
Report
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.
Report
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.
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.
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.
By making John such an unrepentant freedom-opposing monster, Ironclad denies itself any moral thorniness.
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?
Report
Not a bad movie but not excellent either. The acting by Pope John was excellent, and the strategies devised to hold off the enemies were decent. Some of the characters' actions towards the second half of the movie were questionable, and the flow was sort of broken up more than necessary, though that may be good if the director was trying to show how random invasions are and how quickly one can lose another character. Unfortunately, the cast doesn't try to make us like or care about them throughout the movie, so it's hard to feel anything when some of them die... Either way, this is a pretty interesting movie that falls flat in some places.
Report
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.
Report
Ironclad gives you just what you want from a down-and-dirty action-oriented historical thriller. The story keeps you engaged throughout, and the film as a whole is tense and exciting. The film doesn't pull any punches when depicting the often savage nature of medieval warfare - the battle scenes are grittily realised and shockingly brutal - you're right in the middle of the action and can almost smell the blood and sweat as it sprays across the screen. You also get a standout performance from Paul Giamatti, playing a psychotic King John - he steals every scene he's in, and makes for a captivating antagonist. The heroes of this story are a little less compelling - James Purefoy's Templar Thomas Marshall is wooden and underdeveloped, and the rest of the cast is filled out with old reliables from British TV (Jason Flemyng, Mackenzie Crook) and thesps (Brian Cox, Derek Jacobi). Charles Dance is also in the film, and is great as always, but has far too little screen-time to make any real impact. Ironclad's script leaves a lot to be desired, but is far from woeful - it does its job, that is to say, providing the cement that sticks together the numerous set pieces. Ironclad makes for an engaging thriller set in a fascinating period of English history. So long as all you're looking for is a piece of diverting entertainment, the film has a lot to offer. And perhaps most pleasingly, Ironclad isn't the least bit pretentious, unlike another Medieval epic centering on a certain inhabitant of Sherwood forest released the year before...
Report
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.
Report
Production Company
Mythic International Entertainment,
ContentFilm International,
Film & Entertainment VIP Medienfonds 4 GmbH & Co. KG (I),
VIP 4 Medienfonds,
Premiere Picture,
Rising Star,
Silver Reel,
Wales Creative IP Fund,
Molinare Investment,
Perpetual Media Capital
Release Date Jul 8, 2011
Duration 2 h 1 m
Rating R
Tagline Heavy metal goes medieval
