Ironclad

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.

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.

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.