Ironclad

Name: Ironclad
Genre: Action, Adventure
Released: July 8, 2011
Duration: 121 min
Rating: 42
Cast: Brian Cox, Jason Flemyng, Paul Giamatti

2011

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 14 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 51 Ratings

See All

6.6

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6.6	Your Score
6.6	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 51 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Ironclad

Now Playing: Ironclad

Movie Details & Credits

Arc Entertainment | Release Date: July 8, 2011 | R

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)

Director: Jonathan English

Genre(s): Action, Adventure

Rating: R

Runtime: 121 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

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. Read full review

Boxoffice Magazine Wade Major

Jul 5, 2011

Casting is almost uniformly first rate with Cox, Purefoy and the always brilliant Giamatti providing noteworthy standouts. Read full review

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. Read full review

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. Read full review

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. Read full review

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. Read full review

David Fear

Jul 5, 2011

This bloody, messy action film devolves into a plain ol' bloody mess. Read full review

SEE ALL 14 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

gabriela10101

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

gimmedatsammich

Jul 10, 2011

A great action movie. Some of the most brutal medieval swordplay I've ever seen on screen. Sure, it's probably not too historically accurate, but this ain't a goddamn textbook, it's just a summer thrill ride. A nice break from all the super hero movies, I might add. Good acting, good script,A great action movie. Some of the most brutal medieval swordplay I've ever seen on screen. Sure, it's probably not too historically accurate, but this ain't a goddamn textbook, it's just a summer thrill ride. A nice break from all the super hero movies, I might add. Good acting, good script, great action. What more do you want?… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

N1ghtshade3

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;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 of 2 users found this helpful20

Apemonkey666

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 crowdA 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Halfwelshman

Dec 31, 2011

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 battleIronclad 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...… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

SirLouen

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 likePoor 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

badrain

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.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.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

SEE ALL 17 REVIEWS