Steineded
How sad is this?
Rosie Searle
It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
Kirpianuscus
not only for the Medieval story. but for the clichés, absolutely normal when you present an episode who was well known. a story about heroism, resistance against tyranny, sacrifice and change of history. about friendship. and about values. historical accuracy is sacrificed for a noble message. nothing surprising in this. the good fact is to be perfect choice for the fans of genre. and to use a cast who does more than an admirable job. the bad side is low price for credibility of the story. the fight is axis. the explanation why only seven men must save the castle remains scene by scene. and this is the Achilles heel of the film. sure, it is a delight to see James Purefoy, Paul Giamatti, Brian Cox or Derek Jacobi in a historical drama who could be defined as good and almost impressive for the battle scenes. but something missing for to be real good.
empbb
Although the movie depicts a reasonable amount action and semi exciting battle scenes, it is so inaccurate that after a while I've found it hard to watch. The battle images eventually become repetitive and I would have liked to see a more accurate representation of what would happen in a siege, battle, etc...So, here are all the things that I can think of that are clearly wrong: A siege army marches up to a castle. Trebuchets just appear out of thin air an hour after. Really, it would take a few days to assemble the trebuchets. It could take up to an hour to reload a trebuchet to fire again. In the movie trebuchets fire about every 30 seconds. After what looks about 5 minutes of rapid trebuchet bombardment, the soldiers rush at the walls. Of course, what would normally happen is weeks, may be months of bombardment until at least 1 or multiple wall breaches are made. Next to the trebuchets are archers who fire arrows which somehow travel about 3-5 times the distance they would normally and hit the castle from the same distance as the trebuchets. Although about 20 archers fired the arrows about 100-200 arrows struck the castle court yard. This is not considering that normally about half the arrows would hit the wall or buildings and not do any damage. If a king would ever march with an army of just mercenaries, the mercenaries would immediately take him hostage and demand heavy ransom. Indeed, mercenaries would normally join larger armies and the king would always be surrounded by trusted guards. The "good" guys are capable of fighting 10 on 1 odds and win without even a scratch. A mercenary employed by the good guys is loose with women, yet he never rapes any. Sorry but that's just the truth, rape by soldiers, especially mercenaries was common place those days. The castle is exceptionally clean. Mind you they didn't used to have a sewer system... But then again, they haven't pooped even once in this movie, so I guess that's why the castle is clean and doesn't stink. Normally during a siege, due to overall unsanitary conditions 10-20% of the soldiers would be sick as would 20-40% of the towns folk. Not a single person is sick which is fortunate cause there there is no sewer and vomiting just wouldn't do. A few hits from hand held ram break down the gates. This is a castle with 50 foot walls that trebuchets couldn't break down but apparently the gate was made of pillows. When the garrison is told to make a shield wall, the soldiers just stand next to each other holding individual shields. No shield interlocking at all. In fact not only you can slide a sword in between the shields but a small man could probably fit through. A woman that was never trained in combat leads the shield wall while wielding a 50 pound sword, as if it was a movie prop. Ummm... may be that's why... Strangely I see no cattle at all the entire movie. What do these people eat? Historically, when preparing for a siege, they would have collected every chicken, cow, horse from miles around. The castle would have been packed. Where are the town's folk in this siege? There is about 20 soldiers, 5 nobles and may be 20 servants. A castle this size should have 300 or so people and in an event of a siege, peasants from miles around would come in which would bump the number to 1000 or more. Not a single farm is burned during this movie. There is zero pillaging. In spite of the king being "evil", his evilness is limited to yelling, stumping his feet and well he did order an opposing "good" guy chopped up. I guess that's something. Although by the standards set by the times, that was a very quick death, 5-10 minutes of chopping and that's it. Historically, the slow torture would last days and be way more elaborate. Trebuchets couldn't break the castle but towards the end the castle just falls to pieces basically on it's own. People inside the collapsing tower are unhurt by giant stones. Tons or rock just came down but the dust settles down in under a minute and a minute later, there is no dust at all. A wounded and nearly dying man predictably says "go, I'll hold them off" and proceeds to kill about 20 enemy soldiers. During the culmination fight the Templar and the Dane lock sword to axe. The Templar has a clear path to just slide his sword right into the Dane but doesn't. Instead he waits until he is seriously wounded and then kills the Dane. The moment the mercenaries defeat everyone in the castle, the French army arrives. Mind you the whole siege took 2 days. But somehow they just apparate to the middle of England Harry Potter style. The Templar, the main protagonist, at the beginning of the movie was under vows of silence and celibacy breaks both by the end of the movie which is about 2 weeks time. The ending summary states that King John died of dysentery. About time someone pooped in this movie!
brchthethird
While not very deep, and light on character development, IRONCLAD is a well-made medieval action movie which is like BRAVEHEART crossed with THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. The story is about the siege of Rochester Castle during the final years of King John of England's reign. A group of seven men, led by a Knight Templar (James Purefoy) go to Rochester Castle to defend it against King John who his hellbent on retaking lands that he lost after signing the Magna Carta. The reason for it being Rochester Castle is because it was strategically important for the monarchy. During the first part of the movie, the team is assembled and the premise is set up rather well with an expository introduction (there is some voice-over sprinkled throughout the film). The latter part of the movie is the siege, and this is definitely the strongest part of the movie. The battle scenes are brutally violent and bloody, as limbs and heads are hacked and slashed in a variety of ways. What's even better is that most of it was accomplished using good-ole prosthetics, as opposed to CGI. However, up to this point, we don't really know much about the characters outside of Purefoy's Thomas Marshal. During a lull in between battle sequences is when the movie starts to pay attention to the characters. Even Paul Giamatti's villainous King John is given time to shine, which makes the film more balanced. Other than Giamatti, the best performance is given by James Purefoy, who is given the best treatment in the screenplay as a conflicted Knight Templar. As a man who has seen lots of bloodshed in his time as a knight, he begins to have second thoughts about his calling and, in the process, finds love with one of the women at the castle. Normally, when you talk about romantic subplots in movies, particularly action movies, they often feel tacked on or superfluous. Not so here, as the romance is in service of the characters and isn't overplayed. Other standout elements would be the cinematography, and the way the battle sequences were shot. They really put you into the thick of battle and give a good sense of what it might have been like to fend off an enemy in a confined space. The effects work during these sequences was also outstanding. The score was also well-done, and stirring when it needed to be. Overall, this movie is pretty good and definitely worth seeing. There are some philosophical questions pondered late into it, and while nothing really deep is said, it does add a little depth to what could have been just an ordinary medieval kill-fest. Recommended, especially to people who enjoy period war movies.
flamescreaming
Definitely an underrated film. While some of the CGI was lacking, it is an extremely entertaining watch. Mainly because of the intense yet well choreographed battle scenes that don't hold back. The cast is very the cast are all very well suited to their roles, and this cast actually has several actors that starred in this movie then subsequently became stars, like Kate Mara and James Purefoy. Of almost any medieval war films I've seen, "Ironclad" truly presents the terror and brutality of hand-to-hand combat. combined with an extremely underrated and entertaining cast including Paul Giamati, Jason Flemyng and James Purefoy, this movie is definitely a hidden Gem!
