Ironclad

2011 "Heavy metal goes medieval."
6.1| 2h1m| R| en| More Info
Released: 08 July 2011 Released
Producted By: Rising Star
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

In the year 1215, the rebel barons of England have forced their despised King John to put his royal seal on the Magna Carta, a seminal document that upheld the rights of free men. Yet within months of pledging himself to the great charter, the King reneged on his word and assembled a mercenary army on the south coast of England with the intention of bringing the barons and the country back under his tyrannical rule. Barring his way stood the mighty Rochester castle, a place that would become the symbol of the rebel's momentous struggle for justice and freedom.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Rising Star

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Time Saver Even though historically inaccurate, I found this movie appealing, due to its gloomy atmosphere, raw characters and great fighting performances.Filmed with low budget, the story focuses on a specific event, therein lacking certain depth and dynamics. Although poorly developed, the characters are well chosen and give the impression that they actually belong to that time and place. I especially liked how James Purefoy expressed the dark of his character.The fighting scenes are realistic, brutal and very convincing, and it is a real drawback that the chaotic camera movement spoiled that which is best in this movie.If you like raw medieval action, violence and gore, then this is the movie for you.
Mischief810 This is definitely not a chick flick. If Braveheart and 300 are some of your favorite flicks, you'll be adding Ironclad to your list. Look, neither Braveheart nor 300 were completely accurate. Sometimes, the screenwriter needs a little leeway, and this film does just that. We watch, we enjoy, we forgive.However, the script is well written. The film is well directed and extraordinarily well acted.You really do get the sense of the squalid, brutal conditions humans endured in medieval times. You also get a solid sense of mankind's ability for atrocity during the "dark ages."What you also get is a series of very gory battle action scenes, a despicable villain, the tale of a man torn by his calling, and a little bit of a love story thrown in to boot. What's not to like, here?Find time to watch this one. You won't be disappointed.
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!
Robert J. Maxwell This came as a big surprise. For the sake of power over a country, a Christian king, John, claiming to be backed by his religion, fights another group of Christian extremists -- the Knights Templar -- with the utmost brutality, deliberately lopping off hands and heads, performing saggital sections on innocent captives, and doing it all in front of the TV cameras. You should see the arms and legs fly.Worse yet, King John (Giamatti) burns a horde of pigs ("those least fit to eat") alive beneath Rochester castle to undermine its foundations with the excessive heat and bring down the stones. People are one thing, but those poor pigs.John, the rotter played by Claude Raines in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", has signed over some of his power to a parliament but is now reneging and wants to be an unfettered king again. The Knights Templar, who have taken vows of chastity, among other vows, disagree.There are a couple of good things about the film. One is the period evocation. It's all mud and lowering skies; none of the gay sunshine and California bunch grass of the Errol Flynn fairy tale. Another is the butchery. I didn't get the usual feeling that the blood and amputations and screaming were designed EXCLUSIVELY for the entertainment of cheering ten-year olds. When someone is hit full force with a broadsword or a battle axe, I can believe that this is what it looks like.And two good performances emerge. Derek Jacoby as the elderly and exhausted lord of the castle. And Paul Giamatti as King John. Both are excellent. Nobody else is. Nobody else is especially wanting, as far as it's possible to tell, but neither are they magnetic.The story itself, underneath all the chain mail, blood, and muck, is formulaic. A couple of noble people make a last stand and die, one by one, after savage fighting, until they're rescued by the cavalry.It's not nearly as terrible as it could have been.