Ironclad

Ironclad is gritty medieval action at its best. Sure, the story might not be the most profound, but I really enjoyed it. I do wonder how much the film cost to make because the action sequences, while not as polished as they could’ve been, were still pretty engaging and fun to watch. The cast was solid, with Vladimir Kulich standing out as a great villain. I’ll admit, it took me a bit to fully get into the film at first, but once it picked up, it was action scene after action scene, and I was hooked. I wish there were more medieval movies like this one. (09/07/2012)

In the last few years there’s been plenty of action films set in the middle ages (or in antiquity) and I can’t say I really enjoyed any of them. Dirty clowns swinging swords around are generally not my cup of tea. What I appreciate in Ironclad  is the uncompromising brutality of a wind up Paul Giamatti and the idea of setting most of the action in a besieged castle. I actually don’t know whether I want to give it thumbs up (3*) or down (2*), I just don’t care. But if you enjoy medieval battles, go for it. (14/07/2011)

Outrageous carnage. I feel that after Solomon Kane, James Purefoy has devoted himself to the historical “off road” genre for life. That’s not bad, his hero has depth, he's not a fool like in the 2011 remake of Conan the Barbarian, a minimum vocabulary is not harmful at all, quite the opposite. The excellent chemistry between the lead actors is definitely worth mentioning. Well, it can be done without a million words. The action is okay (within the budget), there are several truly wholesome details like a person split in half, and an unusually grand and monumental music for a rather intimate affair with a British feeling (thumbs up). Paul Giamatti overacts and Kate Mara is charming (thumbs up as well). Perhaps a bit more flashy than effective, but in my opinion, it exploits everything that could be done within the genre. (11/11/2011)

Ironclad begins like with the open ending of Scott’s Robin Hood, even in the same vein, so the impression of a "direct sequel" in a low-budget guise is almost complete. Don't expect historical fidelity, but a tedious, bloody romp with cluttered editing. (18/07/2011)

The official film summary is somewhat inaccurate. It should be something along these lines: / After King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta, he fought with the support of the Pope against rebellious nobles. Twenty brave men opposed him at Rochester Castle. Including one Templar knight. / If Ironclad was supposed to be an entertaining spectacle with a touch of history, which is how I see it, then the filmmakers have clearly achieved their goal. If the film was meant to be something more, and I hope it wasn't, then it failed. The Middle Ages were presented just the way I like them. Except for rape and plague, the film featured almost every fun activity of the time. There was filth, there was hunger, pillorying and executions. There was no shortage of slaughter and mutilation with parts of the human anatomy flying all around. In the midst of all this mayhem, Paul Giamatti shone brightly in his standard role of a conniving crook. He was so loathsome in the role of John Lackland that he completely overshadowed my favorite depraved degenerate protagonist James Purefoy. It’s hardly a surprise. I do like him, but he just didn't fit the role of a fighting priest. This film was so straightforward and unpretentious that I decided to ignore the "poetic" license in the form of rapid-fire trebuchets (or siege slingshots, if you like). In real life, the sun would have to move a little faster across the sky. Who cares? The sky was overcast. Anyway, it didn't matter to me because it was a relaxing watch and I had fun. / Lesson: "A kingdom for a horse!" takes on a whole new meaning here. (22/09/2022)