Ironclad
Arc Entertainment | Release Date: July 8, 2011
6.6
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 51 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
26
Mixed:
19
Negative:
6
Watch Now
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
6
HalfwelshmanDec 31, 2011
Ironclad gives you just what you want from a down-and-dirty action-oriented historical thriller. The story keeps you engaged throughout, and the film as a whole is tense and exciting. The film doesn't pull any punches when depicting the oftenIronclad gives you just what you want from a down-and-dirty action-oriented historical thriller. The story keeps you engaged throughout, and the film as a whole is tense and exciting. The film doesn't pull any punches when depicting the often savage nature of medieval warfare - the battle scenes are grittily realised and shockingly brutal - you're right in the middle of the action and can almost smell the blood and sweat as it sprays across the screen. You also get a standout performance from Paul Giamatti, playing a psychotic King John - he steals every scene he's in, and makes for a captivating antagonist. The heroes of this story are a little less compelling - James Purefoy's Templar Thomas Marshall is wooden and underdeveloped, and the rest of the cast is filled out with old reliables from British TV (Jason Flemyng, Mackenzie Crook) and thesps (Brian Cox, Derek Jacobi). Charles Dance is also in the film, and is great as always, but has far too little screen-time to make any real impact. Ironclad's script leaves a lot to be desired, but is far from woeful - it does its job, that is to say, providing the cement that sticks together the numerous set pieces. Ironclad makes for an engaging thriller set in a fascinating period of English history. So long as all you're looking for is a piece of diverting entertainment, the film has a lot to offer. And perhaps most pleasingly, Ironclad isn't the least bit pretentious, unlike another Medieval epic centering on a certain inhabitant of Sherwood forest released the year before...… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
cal1998Jul 19, 2011
Hey if you are a friend of crusader age warfare and a LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTTTTT of sword fighting with blood this is your movie otherwise..............
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
SirLouenFeb 27, 2012
Poor plot, seeing this type of films in a row, may drop my score under the "5". Still has good points like the scenography, the characters are pretty weak in all sense, but the best thing as I've read in other comments, is tha massive amountPoor plot, seeing this type of films in a row, may drop my score under the "5". Still has good points like the scenography, the characters are pretty weak in all sense, but the best thing as I've read in other comments, is tha massive amount of action in the sword fight sense. If you like the medieval type film the is worth giving it a shot... but apart from this, a film that can be skipped with no problems (TV maybe)… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
LordPenneyJan 7, 2012
A brutal film that pulls very few punches, particularly in its portrayal of violence. Although this might be to the films detriment.
This picture is brimming with action scenes. Lots of action scenes. So many that it you start to feel thatA brutal film that pulls very few punches, particularly in its portrayal of violence. Although this might be to the films detriment.
This picture is brimming with action scenes. Lots of action scenes. So many that it you start to feel that you've just seen this sword choreography ten minutes ago. Thankfully however, most off these scenes do contain at least one memorable sequence, but this does not excuse director Jonathan English's apparent arch-nemesis; shakycam. The first two action scenes in the film are rendered impossible to watch due to an easily exited cameraman who took every opportunity to zoom-in-and-out whilst maintaining all the slight of hand of a paranoid 'tickle-me Elmo'.
However, it must be pointed out that the shakycam does gradually subside, even if it doesn't completely disappear, along with the violence. At the start of the film we are exposed to some brutal scenes that don't cut away; this is in contrast to the third act of the film which seems to not be as explicit as the start as it develops a habit of implying violence and showing aftermath. These scenes of implication are actually more effective that their brasher predecessors, although it is probably due their contrast.
The acting is exactly what you came for; its not going to win any Oscars but it does convey enough appropriate emotion in order to allow the plot to trundle along. James Purefoy does seem to be doing all he can in a role that doesn't provide him with much emotive acting to do, but it still makes an awkward chemistry with love interest Kate Mara.
All in all, if you are looking for Shakespeare, why did you even consider watching this film? But if you want something cool to watch with a few mates, then you may want to give this a try if you've already seen 300.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
Sa5haFeb 23, 2012
In the genre of action adventure, Hollywood has earned a reputation of painting idealized realities for viewers to delve into. Realities that depict virtuous heroes, worthy adversaries, adequate character development, enlightenedIn the genre of action adventure, Hollywood has earned a reputation of painting idealized realities for viewers to delve into. Realities that depict virtuous heroes, worthy adversaries, adequate character development, enlightened conclusions, and the triumph of good over evil. This brief combination of themes and techniques offers viewers glimpses into ideal worlds. The films Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, and Robin Hood are just a few which more often than not follow this basic outline, earning audience's admiration and love in regards to the heroes and heroins and the film's ideological pursuits and conclusions. In comparison to the a fore mentioned films, Ironclad paints a more brutal and realistic picture of medieval life and warfare, focusing more so on brutal action than on plot and character development which is nearly non existent and comically terse. The audience primarily, and almost singularly, receives a rich visual experience of what weapons can actually do to the human body while also not receiving the privilege of well rounded developing characters. The heroes don't survive battles with merely a scratch to the head or a cut to the arm, but rather with life threatening gashes and blows that gush fatal amounts of blood. It nearly appeared that the director of the film was eager to discover just how many different ways a sword can slice and puncture a human body. The visual experience is not romantic, nor heroic and certainly not for the faint of stomach. Even the hero of the film explains that it is not a "noble" thing to kill a man and we as viewers quickly understand why nobility is not a direct product of bloodshed. With the film primarily focusing on brutal battles and nearly not at all on maintaining the human interest side to the story, the end result seems unbalanced and incomplete. At times, the film offers viewers an occasional comically serious scene between one note characters which ultimately hints to the film's desperate attempt not to forget that there are actually characters involved in the bloody event. This stark contrast between Ironclad and other medieval films such as Gladiator, brands Ironclad as incomplete, desperate, and unbalanced while films like Gladiator are rich, balanced, and complete while being inspirational. On the flip side however, Ironclad offers something that very few films do: an honest education on the grim and vicious reality of war. In this respect, Ironclad has, dare I say, nobly shed the fantastical curtain of Hollywood and offered audiences true reality, communicating that nobility is obtained from a "life serving others" rather than killing and dominating on the battlefield. This conclusion is sobering as it is refreshing, for not all adventures are as decorated and dynamic as that of Gladiator. Lastly, I must honestly state that after viewing this film, any office working man who secretly dreamed of being a medieval knight would seriously reconsider his fantasy for one that did not nearly guarantee to rip him to shreds.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Apemonkey666Mar 31, 2013
A Siege in the dark ages was probably very much like it was in this film: much waiting, starving, boredom interspersed with moments of extreme bloody violence. For the 25m$ budget they got a decent cast and nice landscapes but you can tellA Siege in the dark ages was probably very much like it was in this film: much waiting, starving, boredom interspersed with moments of extreme bloody violence. For the 25m$ budget they got a decent cast and nice landscapes but you can tell that there weren't many extras to save on crowd duplication VFX shots and also to save on costumes. This causes the film to miss the epic scale that siege battles need. Maybe I'm a bit harsch for this film, it's good fun, but they should have made it a bit shorter (about 15 mins) to keep the pace flowing.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
GoombaJMRAug 31, 2016
Not a bad movie but not excellent either. The acting by Pope John was excellent, and the strategies devised to hold off the enemies were decent. Some of the characters' actions towards the second half of the movie were questionable, and theNot a bad movie but not excellent either. The acting by Pope John was excellent, and the strategies devised to hold off the enemies were decent. Some of the characters' actions towards the second half of the movie were questionable, and the flow was sort of broken up more than necessary, though that may be good if the director was trying to show how random invasions are and how quickly one can lose another character. Unfortunately, the cast doesn't try to make us like or care about them throughout the movie, so it's hard to feel anything when some of them die... Either way, this is a pretty interesting movie that falls flat in some places.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
clayscottbrownJul 22, 2014
Paul Giamatti is very good as King John, unfortunately the film is amazingly Drab.

There are Templer's but only one, and the Lannister Father from Game Of Thrones... but mostly it's Giamatti as a disheveled King John demanding his CastlePaul Giamatti is very good as King John, unfortunately the film is amazingly Drab.

There are Templer's but only one, and the Lannister Father from Game Of Thrones... but mostly it's Giamatti as a disheveled King John demanding his Castle back.

The French come to the rescue!

Can you believe it? The French!

If only it had been about Giamatti's King John without all the rest.

THE VERDICT: STAID/49 Of 100… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

42 Critic Reviews

6.6 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 71 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL