not bad!

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

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.

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.

"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

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.

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 (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.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

"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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.