User reviews

Ironclad is a fictionalized medieval war movie set in Britain during the second rebellion against King John, brought about by his dismissal of the Magna Carta he was forced to sign in the first rebellion against him and his attempts to punish those who forced him to sign it. 

The movie is basically about a Templar and a small group of soldiers who are attempting to hold Rochester Castle, the key to southern England, against the siege of John's superior army and Danish mercenaries. Ironclad is nothing special, but it's entertaining enough. There are a few faces you'll probably recognize among the cast, like Brian Cox, Paul Giamatti, and Kate Mara. I doubt any of the actors or actresses will be up for many awards (though Giamatti, as King John, does get a memorable scene or three), but they do good enough jobs that I had no complaints. 

The look of the film is reminiscent of other recent similarly set action movies, like Black Death and Centurion. Very bleak, grey, and violent. Blood splashes all over the place during the frequent battle scenes, limbs are hacked off, and gaping wounds abound. This isn't a movie for the squeamish.

As I mentioned before, Ironclad isn't a huge step forward for this kind of film, but it succeeds well enough at what it attempts to do for me to give it a positive review. See it, if you're interested.

Released in 2011, "Ironclad" is based on the real-life siege of Rochester Castle by the pompous and loathsome King John (Paul Giamatti) in 1215. In real life the castle was protected by 95 to 140 knights supported by crossbowmen, sergeants, and others, but in the film there are less than 20 fighting men. I suppose this keeps the social interplay in the fortress less complicated. The main protagonist is a solemn Templar, Thomas Marshal (James Purefoy), loosely based on medieval knight/statesman William Marshal. The others include the historical leader of the defense, Baron William d'Aubigny (Brian Cox), a squire (Aneurin Barnard), and various characters played by Jason Flemyng, Jamie Foreman, Rhys Parry Jones, amongst others.

I won't tell you what happens in the film, but in real life King John takes the castle and the nobles were either imprisoned or exiled. Also, the foreign mercenaries John enlists were mostly Flemish, Provençals and Aquitainians, not Danes, and the French didn't arrive until six months after John took the castle. Speaking of the Danes, they're depicted as decidedly pagan when Denmark was already thoroughly Christianized by that point. Lastly, William d'Aubigny was not an ennobled wool merchant and what happens to him at the end of the siege is fictional.

If you can handle historical deviations like these "Ironclad" is a very worthwhile medieval film. The action is realistic and brutal and the main characters are decent to strong. The score and cinematography are top-rate. On the womanly front, Kate Mara plays the platonic wife of Baron Reginald de Cornhill (Derek Jacobi), who becomes infatuated during the siege by the mysterious Templar. Will Marshal give-in to her feminine charms or won't he? Also on hand is Bree Condon as the utterly stunning full-maned brunette Agnes. Unfortunately, not enough is done with the women.

Although not as good as "King Arthur," "Tristan + Isolde" and "Black Death," my three favorite medieval movies, "Ironclad" plays better IMHO than (the overrated) "Braveheart." I'd put it on par with 2010's "Robin Hood," "Rob Roy" and "First Knight."

The film runs 121 minutes and was shot entirely on location in Wales, UK.

GRADE: Borderline B or B+

Bloody version based on historical events with overwhelming battles and great production values with James Purefoy as the fictional Templar knight Thomas Marshall , leader of a motley crew of tough , battle-hardened warriors/underdogs who try to defend a castle besieged by the army of the blood-crazed King John . In 13th-century England, some of the most important barons engaged in open rebellion against the King of England , as they have forced their cruel King John (Paul Giamatti who filmed his role in 7 days) to put his royal seal to the Magna Carta in the year 1215 . Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges .In return for King John's submission to his papal and universal authority, Innocent III declared the Magna Carta annulled, though many English Barons did not accept this action. Yet within months of pledging himself to the great charter , the King reneged on his word and assembled a mercenary army formed by Danish warriors (led by Vladimir Kulich in a similar character to The 13º warrior) on the south coast of England with the intention of bringing the barons and the country back under his despotic rule . As a small group of Knights (Brian Cox , Jason Flemyng , Jamie Foreman , Mackenzie Crook) commanded by Marshal (James Purefoy) fight to defend Rochester Castle against the nasty King John . Barring his way stood the mighty Rochester castle whose owner was the Baron Cornhill (Derek Jacobi married to Kate Mara) , a place that would turn the symbol of the rebel's momentous fight for honor and freedom .

The movie has great action sequences well staged with stylish and vitality , thrills , a little bit of romance and is pretty entertaining . Although is a little revisionist about characters , history and time when is developed the action in a dirty , gritty Middle Age . As the movie makes a big deal out of the supposedly deathly rivalry between John and the Templars , there wasn't one , the actual John awarded the Templars special privileges , including exemption from all taxation and extraordinary protection of their ownerships and in 1215, when this movie is set , the Templars let John use their headquarters , the New Temple in London, as a treasury . King John stayed there often, and stored the crown jewels and his top-secret documents there , as ¨Ironclad¨ has this entirely wrong . Stunning battles scenes illuminate the full-blown feats with a plethora of engaging action set pieces on the combats in which the heads and limbs are slice off here and there . Casting is frankly excellent . Special mention to treacherous , despised king John magnetically performed by Paul Giamatti as an evil and crazed ruler in a sensationalistic interpretation .Despite some critics' complete and utter distaste for the film , I found it entertaining , well-acted, and fast-paced . There are great action sequences including the battle against an impressive fortress and the final confrontation at the climax of the film . Impeccable and evocative cinematography by David Eggby . Magnificent and thrilling musical score by Lorne Balfe . In production a sequel also directed by Jonathan English (Minotaur) and Steven McDool who penned the story which will center on one of the few survivors of the Great Siege of Rochester Castle who is now fighting to protect his family's estate from fierce Celtic raiders .

The picture deals with historical facts about John Lackland who was king of England from 1199 to 1216. Few monarchs have been subject to such appalling publicity as John . Although by no means lovable , he was an able administrator and spent more time in England than his predecessor and elder brother Richard I but he was jailed by Leopold of Austria, returning from Crusades. Being dead king Henry II , then Richard Lionheart was crowned until the third crusade which was crowned John with no Land . The English domain over France will cause length conflict known the hundred years wars(1339-1453). Some barons began to conspire against King John in 1209 and 1212 ; promises made to the northern barons and John's submission to universal rule of the papacy in 1213 delayed a French invasion . Over the course of his reign a combination of higher taxes, unsuccessful wars that resulted in the loss of English barons' titled possessions in Normandy following the Battle of Bouvines (1214), and an ongoing conflict with the Pope Innocent III had made King John unpopular with many of his baron s. The 1215 charter , a seminal document that upheld the rights of free-men , required tyrannical King John of England to proclaim certain liberties , and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today.

There are plenty of lower-budget independent films that have gone on to be more critically acclaimed and more financially profitable than big-budget Hollywood pictures. What is rare, however, is an indie film that masquerades as one of these pictures. A self-labelled "all- star indie action blockbuster" and "inspired by history",'Ironclad' is such a film, trying to redefine the boundaries of British cinema.

Whether by intention or by coincidence, 'Ironclad' picks up a few years after the end of Ridley Scott's 'Robin Hood'. It is England, 1215. King John (Paul Giamatti) has been forced to sign the Magna Carta, which limits his power and ensures the freedom of men.

With the help of a Danish army, the King rampages across the country to regain absolute power. Baron Albany (Brian Cox) and a band of rebels take Rochester Castle in an attempt to stop the tyrant king. A siege takes place, and the rebels must hold the castle until reinforcements arrive.

The film certainly ticks many of the boxes of an action blockbuster. There's a clear "big bad guy vs. underdog good guy" vibe, plenty of action, and some veterans among the B-list cast. The $25 million budget, although pocket change in Hollywood, shows how badly this indie film wants to be big. A big film, however, is not necessarily a good film.

'Ironclad' is at its strongest when it comes to the physical side of things. It does not shy away from gory violence. Heads, hands and feet go flying, blood splatters all over the the camera's lens, and there's a particularly nasty bit involving a man and a catapult. The weapons feel like instruments of destruction rather than Medieval-chic accessories, and often succeed in making viewers wince.

The fight choreography is particularly impressive - characters look like soldiers trying to tear each others' hearts out, as opposed to actors trying to high-five each other's swords. The action sacrifices style and appearance for physicality and brutality, which results in a refreshing level of authenticity.

The 13th century England recreated looks good enough to fool anyone but a history buff. Giamatti and Cox play their roles with conviction and succeed in getting the story moving. Giamatti is particularly watchable, playing King John as an unhinged sadist.

The narrative is where 'Ironclad' falters. Fully aware that the film is essentially about a group of soldiers in a building, the writers have tried to spice things up. One of the rebels (James Purefoy) happens to be a Templar Knight. He regrets killing people for God, so he goes on a diet of silence and chastity, the latter of which is tested (of course) by the lady of the castle (Kate Mara). These are ill-advised attempts at emotional content and only serve to distract from what should have been a simpler, more polished affair.

Regrettably, the filmmakers decided to emulate that most repulsive staple of modern action blockbusters - the shaky-cam. Specifically namechecking 'Transformers 2' and the 'Bourne' sequels as influences (not a good sign), they decided to shake the picture to create "a very real sense of action".

What is achieved instead is a very real sense of frustration every time the action is made unnecessarily incoherent. Once again, the "Michael Bay Effect" has ruined a film that would have otherwise looked excellent, and wasted the work of an obviously talented action choreographer.

Despite its flaws, fans of mud'n'blood, hack'n'slash mini-epics will find plenty to like in 'Ironclad'. It is comparable to 'Robin Hood' despite costing $130 million less to make. Director Jonathan English wanted to create an action blockbuster. In terms of scale and ambition, he has succeeded. But blockbusters aren't perfect, and neither is this.

Even though historically inaccurate, I found this movie appealing, due to its gloomy atmosphere, raw characters and great fighting performances.

Filmed with low budget, the story focuses on a specific event, therein lacking certain depth and dynamics. Although poorly developed, the characters are well chosen and give the impression that they actually belong to that time and place. I especially liked how James Purefoy expressed the dark of his character.

The fighting scenes are realistic, brutal and very convincing, and it is a real drawback that the chaotic camera movement spoiled that which is best in this movie.

If you like raw medieval action, violence and gore, then this is the movie for you.

Definitely shot in a Ridley Scott fashion this is an effective medieval pot-boiler with some moral vision and lots and lots of gruesome full-on combat scenes - without a doubt some of the more bone-crunching, blood squelching fights of recent memory.

Is a great movie? No. It never quite delivers on its promise, and though extremely competent it just can't quite produce that true magic that better films can. It is, however, a highly competent and interesting historical drama. I have some quibbles with costuming etc; but that kind of goes with the territory.

All in all, this is a full-on medieval siege account of the Siege of Rochester -it is well made is most respects and if medieval battles are your thing then you'll be into it.

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.

...And here's what I mean: The movie is absolutely watchable (if you are a fan of historical action, medieval theme and hack n' slash of course). The Battle scenes are shot perfectly. Costumes are not 100% authentic, but not so fantasy-driven as other "historical" movies tend to create these days, but: In places the movie raises the question: did the director any historical research prior to arm his team with cameras and lights or not at all? How, being English, is possible to not know own history if not in details, than at least to some degree? The case here is not about "artistic freedom", that sometimes demands to sacrifice realism or fact to make an art better. The inaccuracies occur here in places, where there aren't any necessity of them.

The rip-offs from the other movies were obvious as well. I don't know whether the authors really did intend to make "medieval magnificent seven" but if they did, they failed. Each character in Magnificent Seven is someone you deeply care. Someone you deeply know. Someone who you never forget. Each of them is unique.

Here: They are seven as well. They have one womanizer. They have on guy who throws knifes. They have one unexperienced youngster who asks for the trouble. They have one huge guy who chops wood when the group is approaching him... But that's it. That's where similarities end. Neither of these characters have any charisma.

Out of two main villains, one plays it's part really good, while other has not much to do except swinging the huge Axe.

Templar - the main protagonist of the movie, is played well as well... but again, his character is cliché as well and not as deep as writers could have imagined. (No fault of the actor here. He worked with what he had).

Plot is simple and somewhat unrealistic. 7 heroes, together with random 11 soldiers are guarding the castle from thousands of bad guys. (One English king and whining Danes who run at the first sight of blood among their ranks.

Bad guys need castle so badly because it's on the strategic spot on the English map and if King who regrets signing Magna Carta wants to rule autocratically once again, he must take it at all costs.

Here you will need all your suspend of disbelief to not raise the questions such as: why the rebels have sent only 7 men with questionable reputation to hold such an important spot...

Overall, like I said in the beginning of this review, the movie is watchable. If you're looking for some good action, blood and gore, you'll get what you paid for. If you're history buff though and easily offended about historical inaccuracies, you can avoid this one.

I enjoy James Purefoy and Paul Giamatti's acting, so yes, I indeed enjoyed this movie. It isn't historically accurate, but it's still entertaining since the actors are good and I especially enjoyed the part where the script gives a lot of screen-time to every character. Character development of anyone other than the protagonist, usually never happens in Hollywood movies. So I was surprised how this movie made me actually care for and even like everyone fighting to protect the keep.

That said, I am afraid the poor camera man was suffering from Epilepsy since every action scene involves camera shaking around and not staying at a character for more than 0.5 seconds. The art of editing and shooting an action scene, is lost on these people.

Anyway, annoyance with the action scenes aside, the real gold is in the moments spent with the characters. Even King John is weirdly likeable.

OK. Ironclad. First comment, Blood and Guts. And lots of it. One thing did bug me was it's somewhat historic inaccuracy. If you are making a film about a well documented piece of history, get it right and don't sacrifice it in an attempt at a good story. The fighting scenes, in which there are many, seemed quite realistic. Extreme amount of blood, severed limbs and heads.

To be honest, not much else to the film except some good old fashioned hand to hand combat. Not one of these films where you have to watch and listen to everything. Just feel free to turn off your brain for a couple of hours and enjoy. If you are after a good storyline, look elsewhere. If you just want to see a good old Hack and Slash, which I found OK, then this is for you.

Remember, if you going to make a film based on real events, no matter how loosely, don't change most of important historical characters and for gods sake, don't change the outcome!! It's as bad as making a film of the Battle of the Little Bighorn showing Custer winning over the Indians and surviving!!

Ironclad is directed by Jonathan English who also wrote the story and co-adapts the screenplay with Erick Kastel and Stephen McDool. It stars James Purefoy, Brian Cox, Derek Jacobi, Kate Mara, Paul Giamatti, Jason Flemyng, Mackenzie Crook, Jamie Foreman and Vladimir Kulich. Music is scored by Lorne Balfe and cinematography by David Eggby.

1215 and having been forced to sign the Magna Carta, King John (Giamatti) enlists an army of Danish mercenaries and plots revenge against all involved. As John lays bloody waste to the South of England, a small band of rebels led by William d'Aubigny (Cox), plot to defend the Southern stronghold of Rochester Castle in the hope they can delay John long enough for the French army to arrive from the sea to depose him.

The history, as is often the case in movies of this ilk, is sketchy and exaggerated, we are in true cinematic granted licence here as Rochester Castle is defended by less then 20 men and a couple of gals (in truth there was a considerable army defending Rochester). Yet Ironclad's sheer willingness to blend historical and period notices with blood and mud is very appealing to the swords and shields genre fan. The recreation of 13th century England is most impressive, as is the adherence to the brutality of the times. Armour and swords do clank with aural sharpness, quickly followed by blood and dismemberment; the body horror is certainly not in short supply throughout the running time. The colour is deliberately muted to capture a realistic feel, and although the shaky-cam technique used for the fight scenes (is this now written in the historical epic director's 101 handbook?) will irritate many, it does aid the grit and grue atmosphere that director English goes for. In fact he has achieved much with only a modest budget.

A splendid cast has assembled for the production, all thankfully attired with thought from the costume department. Purefoy cuts a fine rugged figure of machismo, brooding for all he's worth as he battles not only the enemy, but also his own duel with his Templar faith. Cox is, no surprise, full of gusto and leadership qualities, and the likes of Flemyng (whore chaser as brave as a lion), Crook (ace archer) and Foreman (no fear thief) add considerable grungy brawn to proceedings. Charles Dance and Jacobi lend thespian support and Kulich is a towering presence as axe wielding leader of the Danes, Tiberius. Highlight, though, is Giamatti. True enough to say that as written it's a portrait of a vicious King we have seen plenty of times before, but Giamatti elevates this one to better heights with a glint in his eye and thunderous moments of anger. For his delivery of "I am God's right hand" speech this begs respect. His accent holds as well, always a bonus is that.

Where the picture falls down is with a script that contains duff passages of dialogue and the obligatory romance thread. Poor Kate Mara (stepping in when Megan Fox scampered from the production), it's a thankless role that basically asks her to turn the head of Purefoy's Templar Knight, hitch up her skirt and look wistful from time to time, while having Cox bellow out that John "is no more a King than the boil on my arse" hinders rather than aids the mood. But English and the makers get away with the missteps because it's such good rousing fun, a nifty blend of religion, politics and bloody war. The siege itself is very well orchestrated, as catapult engines bombard the castle, arrows penetrate the sky, men leap around on fire or scolded by hot oil, and there's interesting facts and tricks etched into the narrative too (burning of pigs a weapon of war?!). It may never quite reach the ambitions it sets itself, but in an era when swords and shields movies are in short supply, it's an entertaining and bloody romp for sure. 7.5/10

I don't know what people are talking about here ...

This was a great movie, lots of action, and over the top blood and gore.

Sure, some of the acting was a bit off, and it was all mud and blood but that's what the mid-evil times was , mud and dirt and lots of crap.

The lead actor was excellent for being a lost soul and the wife of the keep keeper was beautiful and what you'd expect from being locked up alone with and old man.

Over all I really liked it. If you want a bit of fun and an easy to watch movie without over analyzing it too pieces then go for it.

You won't be sorry.

If you're desperate for a movie with lots of sword fighting and you aren't a stickler for historical accuracy or good acting...it'll do.

Firstly I am quite realistic about my expectations when a historical movie is made. Real history does not generally run smoothly nor is it engaging enough to fit conveniently into a 2 hour movie, so I refuse to nick-pick a screen writer for adding a little poetic license into a script or for the costume designer who doesn't have the time or resources to get the actors "just right".

With this in mind, I found the story enjoyable and it ran more or less historically and at a good pace, I was certainly never given enough pause to consider boredom. The fight scenes were very good and I agree with other criticisms on the reviews about the shaking camera making it extremely hard to concentrate on what was happening.

There was plenty of blood, limbs and sliced heads to appeal to the gore fest/action fans but it seemed to accurately reflect the face of medieval warfare with its close and gruesome nature.

The cast were a list of well known and respected actors, all of whom put in a good display with what they were given with Paul Giamatti's rant about the divinity of Kings being especially engaging.

Overall its not a classic nor will it win awards, but for a couple of hours action based escapism it is certainly worth the effort of watching and is far superior to a number of bigger budget Hollywood contemporaries.

The actors alone bring so much gravitas to the movie, that it's not unfair to say that they elevate it completely. But the story also works, plus there is a lot of action and blood to be shed. If you like period settings, you will have quite a lot to watch here. And a lot to like obviously too.

The movie is really good, but a sort of sequel kinda almost put it down. Don't watch the other movie before or after. If you must I guess after, but you won't like it. This here has a good script and good effects, with a few nice twists along the way (mostly predictable of course), that will keep you entertained.

It's 1215 England, incompetent ruthless tyrannical King John (Paul Giamatti) has ruled for 16 years. After 3 years of rebellion, he is forced to sign the Magna Carta by the rebels and the Knights Templar. As the rebels disperse, King John gets a new force of Danish mercenaries. He tries to retake England and take revenge. First he must capture the Norman castle at Rochester. Thomas Marshal (James Purefoy) and Baron William d'Aubigny (Brian Cox) lead a small group of Knights Templar as well as Baron Reginald de Cornhill (Derek Jacobi) who rule the castle and his men. Lady Isabel (Kate Mara) is Cornhill's wife. The small ragtag band of fighters hold off against massive odds.

There isn't much setup to start, but there is a history lesson to read through. This is basically one long siege movie. There are blood splattering action and CGI battles. It's sword swinging muddy mess. In between battles, there is some romantic developments between Kate Mara and James Purefoy. The characters aren't really that compelling. The most disappointing has to be Paul Giamatti. He needs to be more incompetent and more tyrannical. Also the romance seems out of place. However there are some good battle action and I do like the movie tackling little known history.

While not very deep, and light on character development, IRONCLAD is a well-made medieval action movie which is like BRAVEHEART crossed with THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. The story is about the siege of Rochester Castle during the final years of King John of England's reign. A group of seven men, led by a Knight Templar (James Purefoy) go to Rochester Castle to defend it against King John who his hellbent on retaking lands that he lost after signing the Magna Carta. The reason for it being Rochester Castle is because it was strategically important for the monarchy. During the first part of the movie, the team is assembled and the premise is set up rather well with an expository introduction (there is some voice-over sprinkled throughout the film). The latter part of the movie is the siege, and this is definitely the strongest part of the movie. The battle scenes are brutally violent and bloody, as limbs and heads are hacked and slashed in a variety of ways. What's even better is that most of it was accomplished using good-ole prosthetics, as opposed to CGI. However, up to this point, we don't really know much about the characters outside of Purefoy's Thomas Marshal. During a lull in between battle sequences is when the movie starts to pay attention to the characters. Even Paul Giamatti's villainous King John is given time to shine, which makes the film more balanced. Other than Giamatti, the best performance is given by James Purefoy, who is given the best treatment in the screenplay as a conflicted Knight Templar. As a man who has seen lots of bloodshed in his time as a knight, he begins to have second thoughts about his calling and, in the process, finds love with one of the women at the castle. Normally, when you talk about romantic subplots in movies, particularly action movies, they often feel tacked on or superfluous. Not so here, as the romance is in service of the characters and isn't overplayed. Other standout elements would be the cinematography, and the way the battle sequences were shot. They really put you into the thick of battle and give a good sense of what it might have been like to fend off an enemy in a confined space. The effects work during these sequences was also outstanding. The score was also well-done, and stirring when it needed to be. Overall, this movie is pretty good and definitely worth seeing. There are some philosophical questions pondered late into it, and while nothing really deep is said, it does add a little depth to what could have been just an ordinary medieval kill-fest. Recommended, especially to people who enjoy period war movies.

I haven't read all of the reviews, but I am baffled that those I did read didn't mention the biggest and most glaring problem with this movie: the laughably extreme shaky-cam action scenes.

I gave it a 2 out of 10 because of the good production values and a good recreation of how those times looked like, but the action is pretty much unwatchable and the writing is just bad, but I wouldn't have minded that if I would have gotten good action scenes.

It is just an disorientating flurry of shaking images and quick cuts and often I couldn't even tell what was happening. Even small action scenes without gore effects, like a short fist fight between two of the "heroes" are filmed as if the DP would have had an epileptic seizure and as if the stunt men would have been so shitty that the editor decided to hide what they were doing as much as possible.

I'd like to ask the other reviewers: Who cares about the historical inaccuracies when I can't even see the movie I'm watching?

Even other stupid mistakes that reveal a shocking ineptitude of the director and writer, like making "the heavy" (the Danish mercenary leader) look weak and inept in his very first fight at the beginning of the movie, are hardly worth mentioning. It is a bit like complaining about a hair in my soup after the waiter just puked all over my table. I just mention it because it shows that the guy making this movie wasn't just a misguided shaky-cam fetishist, but really simply doesn't know what he is doing.

This is just a huge waste of good actors, costumes and other production values. Like giving a Fabergé Egg to a toddler and watching him destroy it.

Even the dialog scenes are filmed badly, in unnecessary close ups that give you a feeling of claustrophobia, even when the scenes take place outside, under open skies. It really is baffling because it seems as if the director and the DP tried their very best to show the audience as little as possible of all the great looking sets, locations, landscapes and costumes they were given to work with.