Ironclad (2011)

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

What a waste, they should use a steady camera in fight scenes, after 10 minutes of unstable handheld movements I was dizzy and had to turn it off, a pity because the ordinary moments were good, but also in the quiet parts also unnecessary camera movements, I hope it will not become a trend. also the story and acting where good, But because of the iritant camera movements, the film has a low score from me.

not only for the Medieval story. but for the clichés, absolutely normal when you present an episode who was well known. a story about heroism, resistance against tyranny, sacrifice and change of history. about friendship. and about values. historical accuracy is sacrificed for a noble message. nothing surprising in this. the good fact is to be perfect choice for the fans of genre. and to use a cast who does more than an admirable job. the bad side is low price for credibility of the story. the fight is axis. the explanation why only seven men must save the castle remains scene by scene. and this is the Achilles heel of the film. sure, it is a delight to see James Purefoy, Paul Giamatti, Brian Cox or Derek Jacobi in a historical drama who could be defined as good and almost impressive for the battle scenes. but something missing for to be real good.

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.

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.