NOTE IMDb
6,1/10
44 k
MA NOTE
Dans l'Angleterre du XIIIe siècle, un Templier et quelques barons se battent pour défendre le château de Rochester contre le tyrannique roi Jean.Dans l'Angleterre du XIIIe siècle, un Templier et quelques barons se battent pour défendre le château de Rochester contre le tyrannique roi Jean.Dans l'Angleterre du XIIIe siècle, un Templier et quelques barons se battent pour défendre le château de Rochester contre le tyrannique roi Jean.
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesAccording to Writer and Director Jonathan English, the bloody hackings of arms and legs were not done with CGI, but with old-fashioned prosthetics.
- GaffesThe film shows Rochester Castle standing next to a bridge in a totally empty moorland landscape. In fact the castle was (and is) on the edge of the City of Rochester, which was already a thousand years old at the time of the siege, and right next to it is the great 11th-century cathedral of Rochester. On the other side of the bridge was (and is) the town of Strood, plus a number of smaller settlements.
- Crédits fousAs the last end credits roll, there is the following language: No animals were harmed in the filming of this picture. "Especially Newts. "
- ConnexionsFeatured in Breakfast: Épisode datant du 25 février 2011 (2011)
Commentaire à la une
I am not an expert on the period this film covers but reading reviews on here and then reading up on the period it is clear that it is not historically accurate. I can see why this would upset some people but for me watching a film is just pure entertainment not a history lesson so it is not something that concerns me too much. The fact that someone makes a film about a specific period in history may, as it did with me, make them get the facts for themselves.
As for the film itself it is nothing if not entertaining. The plot is made clear and therefore unlike some historical action films you actually get to know what's going on and why. In a nutshell a small band of knights have to defend a castle against hordes of King Johns men something along the lines of Zulu. There is a fair bit of tension and the fights are bloody and brutal.
The acting is nothing special though I thought Paul Giamatti was good as King John. The camera work is at times annoyingly shaky especially during the battle scenes but there is also some nice scenery in the few quieter spells.
Ironclad might fail historically but it does succeed in entertaining and that ultimately is what counts.
As for the film itself it is nothing if not entertaining. The plot is made clear and therefore unlike some historical action films you actually get to know what's going on and why. In a nutshell a small band of knights have to defend a castle against hordes of King Johns men something along the lines of Zulu. There is a fair bit of tension and the fights are bloody and brutal.
The acting is nothing special though I thought Paul Giamatti was good as King John. The camera work is at times annoyingly shaky especially during the battle scenes but there is also some nice scenery in the few quieter spells.
Ironclad might fail historically but it does succeed in entertaining and that ultimately is what counts.
- MattyGibbs
- 20 mai 2013
- Permalien
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Ironclad?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Ironclad
- Lieux de tournage
- Tree Tower Manor, Pays de Galles, Royaume-Uni(Archbishop's residence)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 25 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut mondial
- 5 151 023 $US
- Durée2 heures 1 minute
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Le Sang des Templiers (2011) officially released in India in Hindi?
Répondre