22 May 2012

Great Movie, not exactly authentic but enjoyable

This review is from: Ironclad (DVD) James Purefoy is definately the new medevil star of movies. I thought he was great in Rome but seeing how he can turn things around and serve as a Templar Monk for most of his life then come to life as a very tough warrior and still think for himself! Paul Giamatti was also very good in the part of King John, he really made you hate him and wish him ill!!! Regardless what others have written, I thought this was a very enjoyable movie with a cast of mostly new comers or little known actors who did a great job! This is why I don't rely upon others ratings and reviews anymore, too many five star and great reviews have turned out to be duds in my opinion, especially war stories or police movies, those are two that I have a lot of experience in both! Nick Donvito, Camillus, NY...Ret Police Sergeant and 100% Combat Wounded Vietnam Veteran who proudly served with the 1st Air Cavalry Division in 1968/1969.

22 May 2012

Another Great Medieval Story With James Purefoy

This movie was poised to be something great before it went into production in 2009 - it had greater star power and a bigger budget - but many studios in Hollywood were suffering at the time and so this film eventually lost a lot of its backing. The one who stuck with it was actor James Purefoy, a seriously underrated actor known best for "Resident Evil," "A Knight's Tale," "Solomon Kane," and "Rome." Most of the actors in this movie give their best, but moments of weak dialogue and story cliches prevent this film from becoming anything great. The director deserves the real credit for stretching a pretty narrow budget and making it look incredible on screen.The film is fairly historically accurate in its retelling of the siege of Rochester Castle, a not very well known, but important, turning point in England's history - and the history of the free world. This movie begins right after the signing of the Magna Carta and focuses solely on the defense of Rochester Castle and how only a handful of men stood up against King John's army of thousands to eventually humiliate him.SIDE NOTE: Violence. Holy schmoly! I'm a big fan of medieval films, but even I don't think there's another medieval movie of this stature that is this violent. Not only is it gruesome throughout, but the violence escalates - blood spurts, arms and heads being hacked and hacked until they come off, people being tortured, burned alive. It just doesn't stop in this movie! This is certainly not a film for the easily disturbed.Overall, this is a pretty great flick. It's a strong, satisfying action film, and trust me when I say that you haven't seen anything until you've seen James Purefoy diffuse a hostage situation with a sword!

22 May 2012

Enjoyable Action Flick

This an action flick based losely off the siege of Rochester Castle by King John during the Baron's Rebellion in England. Movie takes some artistic license with history to provide a better paced story, after all who wants to watch a movie about people starving over several months. Ironclad essentially begins with King John attempting abolish the recently signed Magna Carta by killing the Barons that forced him to sign it. To do this he enlists a army of Danish Mercanaries. King John kills one Baron, but some Templars get away and warn the remaing Barons who decided to defend Rochester Castle and appeal to the King of France for aid. The movie then follows the siege of the castle and no longer mentions the whole King of France bit till the end where you see the Prince Louis, Frenc Prince, arrive to "lift the siege" with his army. Ironclad has really good cast that with a better script and/or directing could have made this movie easily into 5 stars.

21 May 2012

Id give it 3 and 12.

Good movie but a little gorey. Paul Giamantti does an OK job but overall the acting leaves a little to be desired. A low budget but very informative movie about the Magna Carta. Worth a rent if you like medieval era movies.

jmcfrancis

19 May 2012

Lacks style

Even compared to 300, Ironclad is not remotely historically accurate.There are loads of mistakes, anachronisms and misinformation. Buthistorical fiction rarely is accurate. Instead it aims to beentertaining and in that regard Ironclad's intentions are good. Sadlyit doesn't have the style to pull this off. The main issue is the camera work during the battles, which is hand-held, shaky and quick-cut. It's the same technique that led Quantum ofSolace to ruins and is frankly something that only worked in the Bournefilms. In the end it feels like a cheating technique - a means for thecrew to make things look good even though they aren't. There is plentyof gore and violence, but the effect is dulled by the camera work andediting. The cast, especially Paul Giamatti, seemed to love doing this. It's apity the film lets them down.

Trevor Johnston

18 May 2012

Slipshod storytelling allows the excitement to peak too early, leaving us considerably less engaged by the time the underwhelming and predictable final stand-off is upon us.

lemondgrass

15 May 2012

inaccurate historical movie

to be honest this film has a boring storyline, also a strange mixtureof messy historical detail. I like brave heart movie better. for the most past why lady Isabella inthis film wears a corset like Marie Antoinette? didn't they suppose towear a wimple and a tunic covering their breasts, in those days? theexample of good medieval female attires you can see from princessIsabella in brave heart movie. Ironclad is reminded me of Robinhoodwith Keira Knightley.when will Hollywood stop producing the inaccurate historical movies?the characters are look so americanized at in and outside. the movieshows only one side that is violent and savaged scenes.

15 May 2012

Ironclad was awesome!

I don't watch very many movies anymore, but I really wanted to see this one. And I wasn't dissappointed! This movie was awesome! Really good graphic special effects in the fight scenes and plenty of awesome action! I'm no expert in movies these days, but I can honestly say that Ironclad was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. It had a great story and really good acting by everyone in it.I was really impressed with the actor that played King John. He was top notch in his performance. I was really impressed with this movie and I think everyone should see it. You won't be disappointed!Five stars! Nay, ten stars!

Richard Smith

13 May 2012

Neither fish nor fowl, just foul

I find it very strange these days the most ardent goal of those workingin the visual arts is to obscure from their audience the events theyare attempting to portray. Yet again we have here an example of motionsickness-inducing camera work worthy of an inexpert 1970's home movie.Why do they do this? Is it to unsuccessfully try to make us feel likewe're actually there? I don't want to feel like I am in the fight, carcrash, whatever - I want to watch the film! This self-indulgent "jerky"camera work probably allows cinematographers to have lots ofpretentious conversations about realism, but find me one movie-goer wholikes this trend and I will eat my camcorder.As for the movie itself? It's all been done before so anyone treadingthis path has to either add something spectacular or be historicallycorrect. "Ironclad" fails in both respects. All wars are about moneyand here we have one foreign interloper (the king) fighting anotherload of interlopers (the barons) in order to have the right to tax andoppress the indigenous Anglo-Saxon population. Plus ca change. Thereare no good guys, only events, and the historical inaccuracies(including the ridiculously cartoonish Danish mercenaries) make whatcould have been a good historical yarn at best disappointing and atworst comical.One thing I will say though: Rochester hasn't changed much.

barnabybeech

13 May 2012

It aint easy being king

No one said it's easy wearing the crown. Especially when uppity typeswant to strip you of your magical powers. How cheeky. Using a narrativewhich tracks historical events, the creation of the Magna Carta, themovie chronicles the last stand of a group of defenders at the Alamo,oh, excuse me, Rochester castle. The hordes come in, the hordes go out.The defenders, whittled down, one by one, suffer horrible fates. BTW,the director on this one, limited because of the overwhelming surfeitof men, decided to achieve cathartic effect through the use of violenceinstead of sex. As the defenders are reduced, there is a hint ofquestioning of the themes of violence in the name of god. Giamatti isquite satisfying as King John and the key figure of the knight portraysa relatively redeeming degree of torture in the face of temptation andthe horrors of war. All in all, you can see the origins, or in aclassic case of movie time reversal, the borrowings from the Westerngenre, with a few modifications, evident in the narrative. I found itsatisfying, genuine, with historic authenticity thrown in for addedgrit. Who knew that pig fat, exhibited in a scene of unspeakablebrutality, was used to undermine castle walls because it burned hotterthan anything else? Poor pigs. Where's the SPCA when you need 'em?

RaphRaph

12 May 2012

Balanced pros and cons

Pros:- Interesting situation in which few goodies resist lots of baddiesutilising the available resources in a strategic situation;- Realism in the action scenes with versatility of weapons and tactics;- Believable behind-the-scenes politics and general context supportingthe action.Cons:- Rather unrealistic odds being successfully faced by the goodies,while the baddies seem to collectively lack any imagination andtactical skill other than a couple of attempts that incrementallyincrease the siege pressure;- Tedious unoriginal romantic tension between horny princess andpeudo-pious templar knight;- Tantalising half-done development of the other main characters.Neutrals, depending on your taste:- A lot of graphic gore, mutilation, cruelty; all well done but in yourface.- Loose connections with historical facts and philosophicalunderpinnings, which you might find good enough if you're looking for areasonable backstory or completely unacceptable if you're watching thisinstead of the historical channel.- Presents favourable the salvatory value of horses against thedestructive value of pigs, which you might find unfair if you preferpigs, though you might be consoled that in this movie they are eatenless.

Nick Pinkerton

11 May 2012

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.

Nick Schager

10 May 2012

Like most of Ridley Scott's medieval adventures, the film subscribes to such a stark good-versus-evil setup that it's devoid of any nuance or suspense.

10 May 2012

Is Killing a Noble Thing? - Too right!

This is a British made historical battle-a-thon, It is set in the aftermath of the signing of the Magna Carta by King John. He was more or less forced to sign and as such, felt somewhat aggrieved, so in the true fashion of all absolute monarchs, he sets about killing (gruesomely) every bally person responsible, that is the Barons and their `Monk Knights', the legendary Knights Templar.King John is found out by one of the returning Crusader Templars played by James Purefoy (Solomon Kane), he teams up with the Baron of Albany played by the ever good value Brian Cox. They realise that in order to stop King John they will need to hold the strategically important castle of Rochester. King John has enlisted the help of the Danes, with the promise that they will be allowed to carry on worshiping their Pagan Gods and not have the Pope stuff Christianity down their throats. I suspect a bit of gold may have been promised too. They then set about taking the castle, but Albany has rounded up a small band of killing machines that like nothing more than a big ruck. They include Mackenzie Crook making another change of direction from his more sombre roles as in `The Office'. Rochester is owned by Derek Jacobi playing Cornhill, and he is married to Kate Mara (Isabel), she is somewhat neglected in the bed chamber department and soon finds herself drawn to the mysterious and pious Templar. You just know stuff is going to happen. Meanwhile the siege begins, with trebuchets', siege towers and scaling ladders, plus loads of Viking nutters. They are ridiculously outnumbered but believe that help is on the way from France and so have to hold out.This is a brilliant film, with blood and guts from the beginning and some excellent performances most notably from Paul Giamatti who plays King John, he was so good at being evil, I found myself swearing at him at one point (very juvenile). The fight scenes are frequent and gory and everyone is covered in filth and grime all the time, the way it would have been, no Hollywood airbrushing thank gawd.There is some CGI, but it is all done very well, there is a little de rigueur examination of the ethics of faith and the Papacy, but nothing to take this off track from being a blood and gore filled action fest. At 116 minutes, you will feel it is a short film, but you will also feel satisfied, this should have got a much wider circulation and I am so glad I finally got round to seeing it - if you like historical action this is a must see for you.

08 May 2012

The good ol days when men were men and women were too...

Grunts, groans, grime and gore are the key ingredients here. English definitely wants to be sure his audience understands what thirty pounds of pointed steel can do to flesh. The rest of the film is basically a by-the-book castle seige carried out in drab dirty-dozen style. Worst of all, you have to wait over an hour for the sex scene and the stupid director decides to not go graphic after going over the top with all the slicing and dicing preceding it. Lame. Cornball performances make sure you don't have much sympathy for any of the casualties. Definitely a hack job, but at least it's the kind of Medieval entertainment that does manage to get the bad taste of a Summer Renaissance Fair out of your mouth.

shannon_ranaweera

07 May 2012

Great action.... Poor story

Ironclad, being a story based on the great Magna Carta and evolvesaround the 13th century England lives up to a general level ofexpectation. The action scenes are quite graphical and depicts the realintensity of ancient warfare where men fought sword-to-sword andman-to-man (unlike the hide-and-strike guerrilla ware fare) and showsthe inhuman side of a men when its a game of life and death than therosy sword taps you see in some movies.The background scores are also up to a good standard and supports thebuild up of momentum and emotion throughout the show. However, themovie fails utterly in its story. The decision to hold Rochester with10 heads is a suicide mission to any man. And most of the roles are notbalanced enough.The camera work could have been a bit less shaky which in turn couldhave improved the battle scenes. All in all its an average movie whichcould give you a below par satisfaction if you do not watch it with toomuch expectations. Cheers

06 May 2012

Ironclad

An interesting period piece about what happened after the Magna Carter was signed by King John. A good story and cast make this well worth seeing. The sets and costumes are well done and the locations are great. A Baron and twenty men hold off an army of a thousand in a castle that controls all of Southern England. Without it King John can't truly control the region. If you enjoy medieval movies like Robin Hood (Single-Disc Unrated Director's Cut), you will probably want to see this film. All the right ingredients of a ruthless king, chivalry, and fighting for a noble cause. If you enjoyed this, be sure to see The Last Legion and King Arthur (Director's Cut) [Blu-ray].CA Luster

06 May 2012

Best medieval movie since Braveheart...

This was a great medieval movie. Sure, it isn't perfect, but considering the budget I think the director did a fantastic job. We really don't get enough movies set in this time period, and when we do they aren't usually very good (Season of the Witch, Timeline). The cast is great, especially Paul Giamatti and Brian Cox. The action is brutal and satisfying, though shocking in a few parts. The story isn't bad at all, just really predictable. While it's no Braveheart, Ironclad is extremely entertaining and a welcome addition to the genre, and I highly recommend you watch it if you're at all a fan.

Stephen Whitty

05 May 2012

The problem is that the movie is only swords and stage blood. The suits of armor are all empty.

Belfaborac

05 May 2012

Could have been a good flick...

It's quite sad really. This piece has some excellent actors and apromising premise (if, like me, you like movies based on this periodand of a military persuasion), but unfortunately it is so wildlyunrealistic that it becomes a pain to watch.It starts off right at the beginning, with 3 Templars holding off alarge war band of Danish mercenaries all by themselves while rescuing apriest. The priest, who've had the tip of his tongue cut off, thenproceeds to rapidly die from that rather less than mortal injury.While that's bad enough already, it goes on to a collection of 18-19men-at-arms holding a castle against an army of a thousand men, when inreality such a scenario would have seen them overwhelmed andslaughtered within an hour.Like I said, it's really quite sad. This period of English history wassupremely turbulent and well suited as the setting of a movie such asthis one. Unfortunately Hollywood's penchance for totally ignoringhistory and reality both means it instead ends up an exercise insuperfluous stupidity. Something that also isn't helped at all byinterjecting a totally pointless love story into the mix.All in all a pretty hopeless piece of movie making, which you shouldonly see if it comes your way for free.