Ironclad
2011 Directed by Jonathan English
Synopsis
Heavy metal goes medieval.
In the year 1215, the rebel barons of England have forced their despised King John to put his royal seal on the Magna Carta, a seminal document that upheld the rights of free men. Yet within months of pledging himself to the great charter, the King reneged on his word and assembled a mercenary army on the south coast of England with the intention of bringing the barons and the country back under his tyrannical rule. Barring his way stood the mighty Rochester castle, a place that would become the symbol of the rebel's momentous struggle for justice and freedom.
Cast
Popular reviews
More-
Found I wanted to like it more than I actually did. Plenty of violence, blood and clashing of steel. Littered with faces and names that makes you think you might be onto a winner. It was certainly not the cliches or stereotypes of a film such as this that made it a bit naff, though it has plenty of them, I can handle them. Or the passable but tends to take you out of the film CGI that is used (fairly low budget and all). No, Ironclad is simply devoid of a personality and left me pretty vacant too. It is far from terrible, just a bit blerghulwump (new word for just below average).
It does however feature the lovely…
-
What a thoroughly pointless film. That is 700MB I will never get back.
-
This was a pretty badass medieval action film, with tons of blood, cool actors and a decent story.
-
The mindless action version of The 7 Samurais, set in medieval England. Awesome actors, costumes and gore. What more can you ask for?
-
Offers up plenty of gore, almost too much, and Giamatti is on form, but it also wastes such fine actors as Charles Dance and Derek Jacobi.
As a Scandinavian it's also hilarious to hear what passes for Danish here.
The budget was supposedly cut while filming, so who knows, this might have ended up being a better film.
As it is, it's a revised historic gore-fest, which struggles to entertain outside of the battle scenes. -
Low-brow 13th century historical bullshit action flick. Watched it last night and already forgot everything about it.
Recent reviews
More-
I wish more films like this were around, as (for me at least) a bit of bloody medieval sword-fighting action is perfect for a lazy afternoon when I really can't be bothered to watch anything particularly serious. With a cast that contains some big names like Brian Cox and Paul Giamatti (who is just fantastically despicable as the dastardly King John) and even Sir Derek Jacobi, some "oh it's that guy" smaller name British actors like Mackenzie Crook and a lead performance from a suitably gruff James Purefoy this is a film that never takes itself all too seriously and doesn't really try to have any greater message than "King John was a dickhead" and "Magna Carta was good". Instead…
-
Found I wanted to like it more than I actually did. Plenty of violence, blood and clashing of steel. Littered with faces and names that makes you think you might be onto a winner. It was certainly not the cliches or stereotypes of a film such as this that made it a bit naff, though it has plenty of them, I can handle them. Or the passable but tends to take you out of the film CGI that is used (fairly low budget and all). No, Ironclad is simply devoid of a personality and left me pretty vacant too. It is far from terrible, just a bit blerghulwump (new word for just below average).
It does however feature the lovely…
-
Suprisingly enjoyable. And truly excellent violence.
-
James Purefoy's appearance fascinates me. He's undeniably handsome (in a roguish way) for modern standards, yet he doesn't look out of place at all as a grizzled medieval knight. He swings a sword well too. Both of these things happen to work well for him in Ironclad, a sort-of-historical action film that follows the events following the signing of the Magna Carta in England. King John is trying to consolidate his power after losing it, and a band of rebels is trying to stop him. The rebels, seven of them, hold out at a castle. It's kind of like Seven Samurai. Actually, it's a lot like Seven Samurai. But that's okay. There's nothing wrong with pulling ideas from the great…
-
I have been wanting to watch this movie for a while and it didn't disappoint. Maybe I just like blood or gore but I found the movie very enjoyable. The performances didn't seem phoned in for being a "B" movie. Brian Cox, Paul Giamatti and especially James Purefoy delivered solid acting performances. The movie, while being made for only $25 million, had pretty good production value. Little over use of the CGI blood but other than that I felt like the "sets" were well done. The movie had a few slow points but the action was worth the wait. If you like any of the actors and enjoy this time period, with the type of action you can suspect, this is a pretty solid movie to get you through a rainy morning.
-
historical adventure with 21st century grit. Loses points for pointless sappy romance.
-
Despite a good visual presentation, overall kind of boring and hard to follow. And did we really need such realistic gore?
-
Una película bastante dramática, con muy buenas escenas de peleas, sobre todo hay mucha sangre, ver a James Purefoy en este tipo de historias es muy habitual, su actuación es impecable para todos los personajes que tienen que empuñar una espada
-
James Purefoy, Brian Cox and Paul Giamatti in a medieval seven samuari/magnificent seven action movie.
Paul Giamatti again excels in his almost trade mark kind of character as the mad King John (however no effort is made in trying to speak with an English accent). Forced by rebels, led by Brain Cox to accept the Magna Carta, Paul Giamatti tries to set things right with a hired army of Danes. Standing in its way is the mighty Rochester castle where a small remnant rebel army aims to defy him, led by Brain Cox and James Purefoy.
The battle that follow include a lot of chopping of of limbs and an ingenious use of pigs that is the start of the final battle.