Ironclad (2011)

Note, some spoilers follow.

Ironclad is your typical formulaic medieval movie; a motley band of brave warriors makes last stand against overwhelming forces led by evil, despotic ruler. Warriors are slowly whittled down to just a few, with the hero and the cleavage-baring princess sharing smoldering glances.

Ironclad is unique in the strength of its cast, despite its small budget. You have Brian Cox, James Purefoy (how far he has fallen since Rome!), Derek Jacobi, Jason Flemyng, Paul Giamatti, Charles Dance (plays Tywin Lannister in Game of Thrones), Kate Mara (who replaced Megan Fox), and one of the pirates of the Caribbean who plays a Legolas-type role. Paul Giamatti is entertaining in his over-the-top role as the murderous King John, bent on killing all who forced him to sign the Magna Carta. However, even with the star-studded cast, the storyline is insufficient to keep the movie together. We're left with brutal action sequences, but even the action sequences were only average. They used too much "shaky-cam" footage, leaving this viewer with a slight headache.

It's clear that Ironclad takes liberties with historical events, but I do have to give them credit for at least alluding to those historical events. For example, historically, the Rochester Castle keep was undermined with fat from 40 pigs. However, in the movie, whole pigs were burned to undermine the keep (which would have made a delicious barbecue). Historically, King John did cut off the hands and feet of surrendering rebels, and we certainly see that here in rather gory detail. Historically, King John starved the rebels into submission, and in the movie, we do see some effects of starvation.

Ironclad isn't an Oscar-winning picture by any stretch, but it's an entertaining movie. Sure, it might be formulaic, but it's fun watching Purefoy hack through scores of woad-like blue Danes with his historically inaccurate five foot long Zweihander. I rate it 3.5 stars (more than generous) because the film tried to push the limits of its small budget.

**I had some concerns about the extreme level of gore in the movie. Most of the violence has digital blood added in, but there are several gory bits that one should be aware of. A tongue is chopped off, a limb is repeatedly hacked by a blunt instrument until severed, said severed limb is used to beat another enemy combatant, a man is chopped in half, faces are crushed, a man's collarbone is hacked repeatedly, throats sliced, abdomens opened, hands/feet lopped off, and corpses tossed against buildings. Ironclad is definitely not for the faint of heart.

I'm a bit of a sucker for Medieval period films: always excited by the prospect of seeing something that might hew a little closer to history while exploring the origin of some of today's more persistent cultural tropes; often disappointed by the repeated turns to violence and rather cartoonish proclamations. Ironclad lands somewhere in between by managing to find a few moments which straddle these extremes.

Fellini had once made a very compelling point about the way in which we would view peoples and cultures of the distant past. While discussing "Satyricon" he pointed out that such peoples and cultures would seem very alien to contemporary perception: their behavior, beliefs and motivations becoming border-line incomprehensible to us. Ironclad does not come anywhere near such a portrayal of the Medieval mind, allowing itself instead to make a rather broad number of interpretations vastly more at home in the present day than would have been likely or even possible during the period in question. But even though the film exhibits many of the usual tendencies, it avoids the pronounced sense of romanticizing either the valor or violence surrounding the aftermath of the signing of the Magna Carta and gives a greater dimension to the ideas behind the events with an unexpected and beautifully executed apologia by one of its principal characters.

And that occurs in the performance Giamatti turns in as King John. In his display of profoundly brutal violence against his enemy -here portrayed by Brian Cox -and the breathtakingly belligerent tirade he delivers as his justification, this nearly pro-forma action flick momentarily becomes something that begins to provide us with a credible glimpse into the deep-seated societal conflicts of that time -some still present today. As King John rails about the royalty's ideas centered on divine rights of inheritance while, in a brilliant directorial turn, seemingly standing on water, the lights begin to come on about how utterly ignorant, self-absorbed, cruel and narcissistic the god-chosen rulers of the Middle Ages could routinely be. Such rulers postponed modernity as long as possible by ignoring human rights while clinging to ideas that consistently stunted the well-being and progress of their citizens in favor of brutality, ignorance and suffering. And all in the name of their personal, greater glory.

Giamatti's walk on the water makes this vile worldview palpable and terrifying in a manner that no historical text can. Had Brian Cox been provided with a counter monologue as eloquent and moving in support of the rights of man -something more substantial than merely repeating "Magna Carta" -as Giamatti delivered in favor of suppression, birth right and the arrogance of privilege, Ironclad would have made a profoundly long leap forward for the genre, perhaps even becoming capable of a theoretical joust with Bresson's "Lancelot du Lac".

Buy Ironclad (2011) Now

THIS MOVIE WAS VERY GOOD , IF YOU ARE A MEDIEVL FAN THIS IS THE MOVIE FOR YOU , PLENTY OF ACTION FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END

Read Best Reviews of Ironclad (2011) Here

This was a great medieval movie. Sure, it isn't perfect, but considering the budget I think the director did a fantastic job. We really don't get enough movies set in this time period, and when we do they aren't usually very good (Season of the Witch, Timeline). The cast is great, especially Paul Giamatti and Brian Cox. The action is brutal and satisfying, though shocking in a few parts. The story isn't bad at all, just really predictable. While it's no Braveheart, Ironclad is extremely entertaining and a welcome addition to the genre, and I highly recommend you watch it if you're at all a fan.

Want Ironclad (2011) Discount?

Grunts, groans, grime and gore are the key ingredients here. English definitely wants to be sure his audience understands what thirty pounds of pointed steel can do to flesh. The rest of the film is basically a by-the-book castle seige carried out in drab dirty-dozen style. Worst of all, you have to wait over an hour for the sex scene and the stupid director decides to not go graphic after going over the top with all the slicing and dicing preceding it. Lame. Cornball performances make sure you don't have much sympathy for any of the casualties. Definitely a hack job, but at least it's the kind of Medieval entertainment that does manage to get the bad taste of a Summer Renaissance Fair out of your mouth.

Save 54% Off