Ironclad

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.