CommentsXp
Best movie ever!
Roy Hart
If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.
Guillelmina
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
dandbone
The point of this movie was to show some great battle scenes. It worked a lot like those cliché samurai films, only it was worse because of: shaky cameras, sped up motion in fight scenes, and bad eastern sounding music soundtrack.About the clichés: there is a team of mercenaries, a quiet and reserved hero, because his past weights so hard upon him, a young idealist, and a keep to defend. The theme has been done to death and I would suggest the Seven Samurai for a definitive treatment. Kurosawa's samurai have personalities, too.There is another crime this movie commits. They cast Paul Giamatti as King John and don't let him have his way with the character. This could have been an awesome medieval comedy.
Dario Balado
During the Third Crusade between 1190 and 1194, King John of England, known as "John landless" attempted to usurp the throne of his brother Richard the Lionheart, who was fighting in the "Crusade of the Kings". Having been forgiven by his brother on his deathbed and appointed his heir, John began a reign that cost you maintain and John was the fifth son of Henry II and many disputed the throne. This led him to fight both Arthur of Brittany son of Richard and during most of his reign with the France of Louis VIII to gain recognition and support their lands. At the beginning of the thirteenth century King John was forced to sign in 1215 the "Magna Carta", which this June 15 met no less than 800 years. It determined that the monarch ceded some power being this limited, while the foundations of the common law in England sit. Thus a certain stability in the relationship with the barons of the kingdom would remain. The problem occurs when the king ignores the signed document, supported by the Pope and began a persecution of the barons who took part in the signing of the Charter with the intention of regaining power in the kingdom. So it begins at the First Barons' War (1215-1217). It is at this point that the film begins, we see it reflected the harshness and brutality of medieval siege of England in the early thirteenth century. Baron Albany is observed bringing together a group of gentlemen who along with Thomas Marshal, a Templar knight. The same, possibly a fictional character inspired by William Marshall, who really was not a Templar knight, supported Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton, throughout the film struggle not only against the army of King Juan but also against himself, and you can see try not to break their vows of chastity once she meets Lady Isabel who was wife of Baron Reginald of Cornhill, a resident of Rochester Castle. The rebel group led by Baron Albany takes the castle on behalf of the rebellion and that is where the resistance begins. You can see the seven months that the siege carried out by King John, summarized in the lack of supplies must overcome those who were part of the resistance. An army of mercenaries hired by the Danish monarch trying to take the castle, including destroying part of it, since it represented a strategic position to the domain of southern England. Thus an almost constant battle in which you can see the cruelty of the time, perhaps exaggerated and blood for others, bordering on explicitness view movies Tarantino pound. The resolution of the story, and therefore siege by John Lackland, the hotel is a little of what really happened, but what the hell !!! this is Hollywood.
domedi
Do not watch this movie if you have epilepsie. Most of the scenes are done with a very shaky camera, I think that the cameraman suffered from several epilepsie attacks during the filming but somehow the director did not want to change the crew. It was really so bad that after 30 minutes i could not watch another second. Battle is like this: shaking shaking, a guy, shaking shaking, a wall behind the guy, guess he's in a castle, shaking shaking, stuff is happening and I'm feeling sick, shaking shaking, you see some short shots of blood and limbs and you hear screams, shaking shaking, more screams and a short sense that you think you saw a guy moving around and attacking another guy, more shaking.thats where i stopped watching this movie. I don't know why people decided a shaking camera is good for any movie all it does is make me sick. If you like to be sick and may want to induce a ceisure then watch this movie.BTW no storyline just screams and shaking camera, so thats why i activated spoiler alert, because thats the whole story
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.
