Ironclad

"Ironclad" makes for good entertainment, & purely as a siege movie it works very well. The very average script is only ever lifted by the fantastic Giamatti, but the action & fighting is really good fun. Apparently the budget for this movie was cut during production, which is a shame because English shows some good ideas that are clearly limited by the budget, or lack there of! If nothing else worth if for the scene where Brian Cox gets catapulted into a wall. Giamatti + Cox catapulted = 68!

This may not be a good movie, but I'm kind of a sucker for anything in the gory medieval action milieu (and Game of Thrones is on hiatus), so I enjoyed it.

Ironclad has numerous fallacies, amongst which is a lack of a proper game plan. Whole movie is basically a castle defense alternating between mud/blood and dim character chatter. Non chivalry and brutality of the action saves grace and makes this an appetizer for anyone interested in the genre.

skip through to the fighting, enjoy & then never speak about it again.

Ironclad is certainly an action-packed film, but the action is difficult to follow and none of the characters are easily distinguishable from the others. It's hard to even tell the good guys from the villains, and that's a major problem in a film like this. The love story also felt really tacked-on, and it didn't help give depth to any of the characters involved. But if you want a bloody castle siege film, this might satisfy.

Seven Samurai retold as a siege of a Medieval English castle at the hands of King John and his Danish mercenaries. The script is very silly indeed, and the budget clearly didn't match the director's ambition, but it has a very solid cast and plenty of gory hack and slash action. As per usual, the romantic subplot was completely unnecessary and unbelievably stupid, adding absolutely nothing to the film. Why do filmmakers keep jamming this nonsense into movies that don't need it?

Entered into the Guinness World Records as "Movie With Most Instances of People Literally Getting Cut in Half". Worth it for people who get off on gore, machismo bullshit and/or has a crush on Thomas Jane lookalike numero uno, James Purefoy.

Following the Seven Samuari formula closely, Ironclad is hardly original but what it does it does very well. An A-Grade cast for a B-Movie raises the scenes where no one is dying up to an almost equally entertaining standard. The middle drags (but only briefly) and the romance subplot should have been left to someone else or left out entirely, but these are quibbles in what is a great little movie.

Not enough medieval siege movies in your diet? Ironclad is chock-full of vitamin Kickass.

The medieval action movie that Ridley Scott's Robin Should have been (with better actors even), Ironclad is a gory, sweaty action-opus from a director I couldn't have had lower expectations for. Picking up where Ridley Scott dropped the reins on his revisionist retelling of the Magna Carta, Ironclad follows the aftermath which boils down to a prolonged castle seige that mixes the Alamo with 300 (minus Snyder's artistry or slowmo). I wouldn't be surprised if this became a cult classic.

It has a slightly different take on your standard medieval siege movie, but after 15 minutes or so it gets quite going. Be prepared for some unusual gore and violence, it's not just hack and slash, it's fucking HACK and SLASH with body parts flying around.

Cracking siege movie, with a fantastic cast and insane levels of gore and brutality. Highly recommended

Altogether, there is perhaps nothing exceptional about this film, but it was simple and entertaining; and outside of the (admittedly effective) shaky-cam sludge-fests, it was actually quite beautifully shot.

A budget mass-market epic which explains why it fails at some many things. The theatrical acting kind of works for Paul Giamatti who gives it his best shot and is pretty cool and entertaining. James Purefoy attempted to have a very contemplative and wise look at many parts, but only looked as if he was trying to hold in a fart. Still very entertaining. Kate Mara is cute and sexy. Poor writing, poor pace, lack of focus - in acting and in plot progression - but still entertaining enough.

Great premise, solid action, and some stellar actors, but it slides inexorably into something unnecessarily dumb.

An okay movie, about a group of people just trying to get their tower defense on.

A macho movie with buckets full of gore and guts and tough fighting scenes. All women made for love. One must love affair included. Giamatti is always good, but the script was not that high and mighty.

Precious little of Paul Giamatti yelling at the top of his lungs, which is the best part of this movie

Extremely brutal movie with some very good acting beneath the blood.

Formulaic castle defense, but very well executed.

Giamatti (who overacts the SHIT out of this movie) and Cox are the only redeeming qualities of this. I don't know what else to say, I'm still recovering from how bored I was.

Gore and P.Giamatti makes this movie stand out quite a bit. Too bad for obvious lack of money in order to finish it properly.

An interesting little "true" story that certainly takes its liberties with history. Not a good movie, but it has some okay action beats and that wig on Paul Giamatti's head is hilarious.

Silly. It's a wonder there is any scenery left for them to fight on given the rate at which Paul Giamatti chews through it. Purefoy does a good selection of pouts and looking over his shoulder. Spectacularly violent, which I would say counts as a period detail. Fun though. Silly fun, but fun none-the-less.

not even Tarantino has this much blood throughout a movie.. apart from the brutal fight scenes great visuals, nice costumes and beautiful scenery... script is boring and not creative

There are some low-budget knight films that manage to genuinely entertain. This is sadly not one of them. Shame because it does have an impressive cast, I was pleasantly surprised to see Vladimir Kulich in something as he was great in The 13th Warrior. That said, aside from seeing James Purefoy cut through a dude's sword, and then the dude, in one stroke, the movie is pretty forgettable.

Giamatti is very good in this one - almost too good, as his performance carries a gravitas so strong that the protagonists are upstaged whenever Giamatti is on screen. Overall a solid history film with plenty of action. A little too much shaky cam for my tastes, but there is some genuinely well-done siege action complete with trebuchets, siege towers and mines. Be warned, some of the kills are unusually gruesome.

Ironclad > Robin Hood

Without a doubt, this movie has awesome fighting scenes full of blood and kick-ass battle cries. Everything else, however, was pretty lackluster.

The action and tactics are very poor, but the story and the sets are not bad. It's kind of alright, but it's just not sensible in the siege of fighting really.

Great on the gory, messy kills. Paul Giamatti does a really fine job playing a pissy little shit for a king. Its a fun one to watch, but nothing too special.

Nothing particularly unique about the plot which strays into revised history silliness but it does have spirited acting by a demented gnome-like Giamatti. The siege sequences are some of the most brutal in its genre with sick unrelenting gore and sadism. There was a bit too much epilepsy cam which probably means the director is not confident in his ability to direct long unbroken fight sequences. It's a pity because it does have above average action when scenes are allowed to flow.

If only Kate Mara went missing on this one and her shitty romantic plot this could have been a 70/100.

İngiltere'nin kraliyet ailesini yerden yere vuran film. Magna Carta kanunlarını kabul etmeyen Kral, tüm kalelerdeki baronları öldürmeye başlar. Tapınak şövalyeleri son bir kaleyi korumak ve halkı özgürleştirmek için kral ile savaşırlar. Filmin karakterleri ama iyi, ama kötü şekilde öldükleri film, kanlı canlı işkenceli sahnelerde gerçekci olmuş. Oyuncuların abartılı rolleri göze batsa da öykü kurtarıyor. Kaleyi içten fethettim ama fransız kaldım.

Good for the gore, Giamatti and Purefoy, if anything.

I had a lot of high hopes for this film since I'm a huge Paul Giamatti fan (ever since John Adams), but I ended up really disappointed. Its not that anything in this film is that bad, but as a whole Ironclad isn't memorable and feels like a waste of two and a half hours. The actions scenes are passable but we've seen them before (like in Kingdom of Heaven and Two Towers), and the film's now-cliched message about oppression adds little to that from the Ridley Scott version of Robin Hood.

brutal ,very brutal ,i like medival action movies but this is too much.

For a movie, that should be bad, Ironclad isn't! It's Robin Hood meets Saw and Hostel with limbs being chopped of every other minute. Paul Giamatti is the brutal John of England, and after a little Google research, it turns out the film is also historical quite accurate. Maybe not the seige part, but on everything else. So if you get a hard on when blood's squirting around you'll love it and at the same time hate the in between fights story, which of course is about honor and a templars love...

"Like most of Ridley Scott's medieval adventures, the film subscribes to such a stark good-versus-evil setup that it's devoid of any nuance or suspense." - Nick Schager

A large portion of gore a la 1215 with a more than generous side dish of cheesy old bollocks.Thought Giamatti played the poor hand dealt him very well.Oh,and let's ignore the fact that King John actually won this siege & there were over a hundred defenders & he was mates with the Templars & that that Baron wasn't hacked to bits & lived a long while after.Historical fact,who needs it?

2017-03-14 could not entertain me

An epic Medieval war movie. A small band of rebels held a key castle for months while King John attempted to defeat & then starve them out. The point of the story was not well explained, and did not make sense. The battle scenes were sometimes disjointed since they cut away constantly. James Purefoy was sometimes vacant. Brian Cox awesome as always. Kate Mara was hot. Best performance I've seen from Paul Giamatti. It needed more love scenes. Worth a watch but some of it was unnecessarily dreary.

Good actors and such an interesting story wasted in an average script and cheap-looking cinematography. Even the action scenes were ruined by the infamous shakycam.

Very brutal and bloodfilled movie. Chopped of hands and throats throughout the whole movie. Story too simple for my taste!

I can't stand Game of Thrones and this is just sub-GoT tosh

not bad!

It's daft, but an entertaining kind of daft. Paul Giamatti just about steals it as the KING of ENG-land - the word ham doesn't even start to describe it. All in all, the cast is better than what the script deserves, which makes the film better than it should be, if that makes sense.

Self-important and pompous while still childishly gory. For collectors of castle siege movies only.

Admirable as it may be, the attempt of adding a broader historical setting to this tale never quite works (with the occasional exception of Giamatti's King John perhaps). What it does (alongside the many weary cliches) is take the air out of the otherwise potent castle siege, that offers some of the most realistically gory action in the genre, even if it does treat this as novelty more than realism. It gets some points for adding evil Danes into the mix though.