Ironclad

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. (07/14/2011)

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. (07/18/2011)

Megashitstain Paul Giamatti (as King John) hires a bunch of Danish mercenaries and, with the Pope’s blessing, sets out to punish everybody who... just everybody. A bunch of guys, who for money or personal reasons don’t agree with the king’s intentions, decide to stand up against him. A solid screenplay, darn good actors and proper butchery full of heads split open, severed limbs and impaled bellies. A shame about the shaky shots during the battles, but as I say, spurting blood and burning pigs raise the standard. In these sequences, Ironclad comes exceedingly close to historical fact. Do you know that when I was child, I once secretly ate every urn of my father's beloved honey peaches. And the next day he brought before me a servant girl that he had accused of the crime. And he placed her hand on the table and he drew his knife... and he delivered the punishment. And that night, unable to contain my shame, I confessed to him that it was I, his son who had committed the crime. But you know what his response to me was? "I know. I know. And that is why I only cut off her finger. You see John, any action against the throne must be punished ruthlessly. For that is the only way to maintain the absolute power of a King." (09/16/2011)

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)

A first-class medieval knock-off, which was spoiled only by occasional flashes of TV quality film making. James Purefoy, after his portrayal of Solomon Kane, once again delighted, and the excellent Brian Cox or Paul Giamatti did as well. From a simple fable on the theme of "The king is a bastard, but if we defend this castle, he might go to hell", thanks to a pleasant script giving each character room to become memorable, it turned out to be a very successful story that does not get boring despite the two-hour runtime. The battles are incredibly rough (cutting a barbarian in half with a two-handed sword, for example) and there is plenty of blood, but nothing is just for effect, because everything has its place. Just like the romantic storyline. In addition to the director, praise must also go to Lorne Balfe's good music. A strong four stars.__P.S. During the scene where the barbarian army besieging the castle started to "build something", and that "something" was made of wood, it was tall and it was supposed to help conquer the castle, I started laughing. But it was the memory of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. (11/15/2011)

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. (09/22/2022)