winnettknox

21 May 2012

gore & grunts

Supposedly, the back-story of King John & the Archbishop of Canterburyat the time the MagnaCarta was signed... But in actuality, it is afestival of computer-generated gore & primordial grunts, separated byvery brief and insignificant scenes of sexual tension & modern-daydialog in vaguely Brit accents. Visuals are unoriginal andunconvincing... battle wounds look like rejected anatomy textbookillustrations, costumes look like they were previously worn byemployees in a theme-park restaurant, close-up scenes look like theywere filmed in an abandoned amusement park castle. What is supposed topass for England's drab and foggy landscape looks like it was copiedoff the box of a bootleg video game. Instead of watching this, yourtime would be better spent hanging out at the local gas station. (alsomake a mental note to proceed with caution when tempted to rentanything else by the same director or producers).

Neil Welch

21 May 2012

Mediaeval Magnificent Seven with mud

Seven assorted losers / misfits / warriors are brought together todefend a lost cause against overwhelming attacking forces. However, thesetting here is Rochester Castle, and our defenders are opposing theforces of villainous King John, who is seeking to tear up Magna Carta.Yes, it is essentially the Magnificent Seven again, but everything iscold and wet and miserable and grey and covered in mud.Paul Giamatti is King John. He is an actor I usually like: here he isdemonstrating the I Shout A Lot With An English Accent School ofActing.Brian Cox is Quirky Baron With Anachronistic Turn Of Phrase Who UttersPithy Defiance While Having Limbs Hacked Off.Derek Jacobi plays Dignified Aged Castle Owner With Trophy Wife WhoResents Being Put In This Position Then Commits Suicide For No ApparentReason.James Purefoy is Miseryguts But Valiant Knight Templar Who AllowsHimself To Be Seduced By Trophy Wife But Then The Film Doesn't MakeAnything Of It.Kate Mara plays Trophy Wife Who Remains Incredibly Clean While EveryoneElse Is Covered In Filth. I keep waiting for Kate Mara to have a breakout film - she is both talented and photogenic - but I don't think thiswill be it.Mackenzie Crook plays Legolas Only Not So Clean Or Good Looking OrImmortal.There are lots of fights. Lots of Blood. Much hacking and chopping andgraphic violence. The battle scenes would have been well served withsome action blur: unfortunately, like much digital action, what resultsis a kind of pixillated stop-motion rather than blur.Don't expect the film to explain its title.This film was OK, but no better.

Ray Bennett

17 May 2012

Medieval history lesson with lots of shattered bodies and splattered limbs.

Sean Gandert

17 May 2012

Most of the movie is so bland and has such a lack of passion for characters or story that it makes you wonder why anyone cared enough to make it.

maatmouse-1

15 May 2012

Visceral actioner based on historical siege

Ironclad is the story of the Rochester Castle siege, set duringmedieval times as King John is forced to sign the Magna Carta by thebarons. Angered at having to do it, he decides to take out hisfrustration on England and also wants to take Rochester Castle, astrategically strong point in England, in case of possible invasionfrom France.Preventing King John from doing that is the team of Brian Cox, JamesPurefoy, Jason Flemyng, Jamie Foreman, Aneurin Banard, Mackenzie Crookand castle owner Derek Jacobi and Kate Mara. It is James' character ofMarshall that receives a huge amount of attention as he struggles withhis blood lust against John countered with his vows and his consciencedealing with Kate Mara's somewhat bold aristocrat. What makes the film is its action and what action it is! Bold,visceral, with the viewer very much in the middle feeling what theactors are feeling. At times, it can be sometimes very intense althougha criticism I have is this tendency towards steady cam and giving thecamera movement. It is all well and good but if the camera was moved abit wider to accommodate the action more, it would have been a betterfilm. That said, perfecting steady cam and utilising hand held camerasis quite an art and mastering it takes time and experienced camera men.Yet these steady cam issues are minor niggles. What emerged from thosemonths in Wales for Jonathan English and his superb cast is a brilliantfilm, nicely rendered and balanced with some good, real balls to thewalls action interplayed with a good mix of romance and scene setting.It was also nice to see some of my buddies in the film, doing theirthing. Hopefully more work coming their way after this.Go along and watch it. You won't be disappointed.

15 May 2012

Ironclad

An interesting period piece about what happened after the Magna Carter was signed by King John. A good story and cast make this well worth seeing. The sets and costumes are well done and the locations are great. A Baron and twenty men hold off an army of a thousand in a castle that controls all of Southern England. Without it King John can't truly control the region. If you enjoy medieval movies like Robin Hood (Single-Disc Unrated Director's Cut), you will probably want to see this film. All the right ingredients of a ruthless king, chivalry, and fighting for a noble cause. If you enjoyed this, be sure to see The Last Legion and King Arthur (Director's Cut) [Blu-ray].CA Luster

Philip French

12 May 2012

A topical history lesson in the form of a horror comic.

Colin Covert

11 May 2012

This English sword-battle drama is a mess. But there's a violent simplicity and a lack of pretentiousness that's refreshing.

Lisa Giles-Keddie

05 May 2012

Captures the contemporary imagination: freedom for every man ... we empathise with its characters' determination to defend this ideal ... we easily commit to the grounds for the barbarity.

GUENOT PHILIPPE

04 May 2012

Why such a corny ending?

This is an authentic little masterpiece which reminds me PaulVerhoeven's FLESH AND BLOOD and also, somewhere, Franklin Schaffner'sWAR LORD, starring Charlton Heston. A medieval tale about a siegearound a castle and its keep. A real fierce, brutal, bloody andsometimes disgusting yarn that sticks you to your seat. A hard boiledstory not for the squeamish. But I don't understand what the hell doesthat f...broad do in the middle of such a story, such a wonderfulmovie. It's a man's story, not for female, not for the sissies...Andbecause of that broad, the ending is such a mess, such a disaster.I am ashamed of this for the screenwriter and the director too.Everything is spoiled with this f...ending for the sissies.And such a pain for me.If you don't see what I mean, only imagine a love story between AnneBancroft and a man in Arthur Penn's masterpiece MIRACLE WORKER...Itwould have been as appropriate as an elephant standing in a CityHospital...I hate love interests among manhood tales. There is no place for that.

04 May 2012

Surprisingly good and surprisingly well done... buy it!

This review is from: Ironclad (DVD) Others have written reviews telling most of this film's plot so I'll not retype what's already been said. I will say I was very surprised by the higher-than-expected production quality of this movie given that it was obviously not a mega-budget epic. This is not "Kingdom of Heaven" but it does a superb job of looking like a "big" medieval movie. The acting is very good, the story line is predictable but good as well, and the costuming and historical authenticity, as far as wardrobe and weapondry is concerned, is fantastic. Yes, the Templar does use FAR too large of a sword in some of the fighting scenes, but aside from that, I really didn't see any glaring inaccuracies as far as weapondry and wardrobe were concerned. Typically, yes, the fair maiden is busty and I am aware that ladies didn't run around with their heads uncovered back then, but, movies for some reason, haven't decided to have all the "respectible" ladies wearing head coverings because that's just not what movie goers want to see. It also does amuse me, since I do medieval reenacting as well, how snug the chain mail is (especially on the arms) in all medieval movies, the speed at which characters can get in and out of it, and how effortlessly it seems to be worn - but, that's something you have to experience before you appreciate the historical accuracy of it. If chain mail sleeves fit as tightly as they do in this movie (and every other movie I think I've ever seen), no one could ever get into, or out of, their mail. All that aside, it's a very good flick about a subject that should be better known. Yes, it is gory as everyone has stated. In fact, this is probably THE single most gory medieval warfare movie I've ever watched, but, that's the way it was back then. On the gore-fest subject, however, what you will see here is no worse than anything shown weekly on "The Walking Dead" and nobody seems to have a problem with that. Overall, I highly recommend this one. Would've given it five stars if it had employed a few more extras for the battle scenes assaulting the castle; that's my only real "beef" with the movie. When William attacked Rochester, I'm certain his army looked a lot more intimidating in numbers than the movie portrays, but, this is a minor point. If you like medieval history, if you liked "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Pillars of the Earth" or "Centurian" this movie will not disappoint.

helturflippad

04 May 2012

SPOILERS! What is wrong with people?

Despite containing several competent actors (Like Brian Cox, JasonFlemyng, Paul Giamatti, Charles Dance, Bree Condon) this movie is stillan epic fail. Storywise it is "let's hold some boring castle despitebeing ridiciously undermanned". Besides this you basically havemonotone pc made blood squirts that you not see much of as... Thephotography is apparently shot by an visually impaired epilepticParkinson's intern stumbling down a never ending staircase. It is sobad that even if you pause screen you won't make out much more than ithas computer made blood f/x they try to shake.Even though the assemble attempts to deliver they never get a break asnothing particularly interesting seems to have been written in thescreenplay. Also I have the feeling that Ironsleep was miscast despitequalified actors. I really like Giamatti but despite being one of themore interesting characters he in paradox seems misplaced, further theyhave a beautiful girl that not puts you to sleep (Bree Condom) that isof more interest than the not so interesting lead lady.Surroundings are also noteworthy, the sterile computer rendered"castle"?!? is without comparison the most boring castle setting I haveever seen on the big screen. It clearly is an unfinished canvas as theydid not even bother put in a single interesting detail in there. (Seemspeople lives there by gnawing on the poorly rendered stone-walls asthere is virtually nothing, and I mean NOTHING, else present exceptsome mud.Speaking of minimalism, what is up with the defenders running mileswith some small coffecups?!? of hot oil and flickin it over the wallson the aggressors. Is this some early attempt of oil-massaginghair-bottoms?!? Why do they boil oil as far as human possibly away fromwhere they need to use it quickly? These silly details areunfortunately integrated thoroughly throughout the entire sleepingpill.If you get the green lights to make a movie, and you get competentactors and sufficient funds. Why not get a GOOD script, a photographerabove age 3 and an editor that does not edit 5000 cuts/sec?!?The most depressing part is that we have all seen 500 worse post-lotrmedieval attempts.My recommendation is press stop, eject and fast forward to the battleat helms deep. Or if you're in to siege's, insert The Warlord, Flesh +Blood, Feast, Zulu, Demon Knight, Night Of The Living Dead, Assault onprecinct 13, Birds or whatever sieges you on mates...Hope this saves you from insomnia and acute indifference mates

yeodawg

02 May 2012

Paul GIAMITTI pays King JOHN by reprising his BIG FAT LOSER ROLL, oh and wench-sex

Oh!...so now king ARTHUR was a renegade TEMPLAR Now lets go back intime the last time we checked in King ARTHUR was a Roman Calvary manwho fought the blonde horde of SAXONS, now he's a templar fighting theun-washed blonde horde of DANES hired by the Church to back King JOHNin his reclamation. Like CENTURION, an the King Arthur TV series thisshow is filmed in dark damp realistic England castles, WHICH IS BORINGAND SLOW…..the pace was slower than a history channel documentary. Butit makes up for it with plenty-o-WENCH-SEX. Now me being an American Iknow of VORTIGAN, who wanted to kill Merlin as a boy to stabilize hiscastle. I know of King Arthur, of course, King RICHARD, King GEORGE forthe revolution and the queen of England. So all these films handingKing John a beating over the Magna Cart is awesome interesting andeducational. There's a lot of gory sword of course, a lot usualsuspects a few bit players from GLADIATOR, TROY, 300, 13nth WARRIOR,Rome (the series) of course. Good movie if you're an Anglophile watchit, no TIMMY I don't have any candy I said ANGLO-PHILE.

01 May 2012

"We claim this castle in the name of the rebellion!"

Set in the year 1215, IRONCLAD (UK/USA/Germany-2011) features Derek Jacobi (I, CLAUDIUS) as Reginald de Cornhill (constable of Rochester Castle) and Paul Giamatti (AMERICAN SPLENDOR), who gives an impassioned performance as "evil" King John. Background: at Runnymede, a coalition of barons forced John to sign the Magna Carta, a document that assured certain rights to free men, including protection against arbitrary punishments of the king. According to this highly fictionalized work by writer/director Jonathan English, King John immediately reneged on the Magna Carta's coerced promises. His campaign to retake control of southeast England, with the Pope's blessing and an assist from Danish mercenaries, is disrupted by a handful of men led by a brave knight templar (James Purefoy) who rides a white horse. Their courageous stand at strategic Rochester Castle and keep delay John's advance long enough for help to arrive from France. The rebels were beseiged for months, outnumbered a hundred to one, and most of them perished after a number of battles. The survivors witnessed their liberators' arrival, the scattering of John's forces and his retreat from the field. This all makes for engaging cinema, but reality is quite different.The rebels within Rochester numbered about 100, not thirteen. The baron leading the castle's defense, William d'Aubigny (who's played by Brian Cox and called "Albany" here), wasn't maimed and then brutlly killed. He in fact lived 20 more years and became a loyalist upon the accession of Henry III. Nearly dead from starvation, history says that Aubigny's garrison surrendered to John in November 1215, after a seven week seige. John's hired pagan troops (also incorrect) never fled the field, as depicted in this film. The castle wasn't his for long, however as the barons' new leader, Prince Louis of France, captured Rochester in 1216, but long after its defenders had been removed..IRONCLAD suffers from clichéd techniques of modern movie-making, including distorted and spastic camera work during battle sequences, plus an over-reliance on violence and digitally-enhanced gore. Here, broadsword blows split men asunder as if they were pats of warm butter. Wounds are extra-ghastly, yet those "good guys" sustaining them continue doing battle until they're skewered on sword blades like so many shish kebab nuggets.Despite these limitations, and accepting an intentionally inaccurate script, I have to admit I enjoyed this picture, and that's what really matters in the end.

doniedark

30 April 2012

better than crows robinhood

bloody! The first sword movie since gladiator where the fight sceneswere gory and bloody. The fight scenes were well choreographed. Therewasn't much of the close up shaky camera con that recent films haveused. the fighting was clearly visible with the camera a distance backfrom the fights, swords going through flesh (and heads!)It's good to see a film about Englands ancient history. So much hashappened in our past for such a small island but its rarely representedin the movies (certainly not in any kind of positive light).There wasn't a great deal of character building as we didn't really getto know the people though there was a taste. Basically the films focuswas on the siege of Rochester castle. So lots of people trying to climba wall and hack away at the guys inside! Though the magna carta wasmentioned the film didn't really explain how important it was or whatit meant to England, its people and one day the world. This could havebeen done better. Judging by the cinema photography I'd say it was lowbudget so they didn't do too badly all things consideredI liked the film and will watch it again one day. PS Not reallyhistorically correct but the jist of it was on the right track and heyit's entertainment not the history channel......

30 April 2012

MASADA MEETS THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say this was inspired by an historical event, rather than being based upon it. Historically this comes after "Robin Hood", and before "Season of the Witch." It is certainly more historical than "Season of the Witch" and "Robin Hood." Paul Giamatti is a great actor, although previous actors have portrayed King John as being a lot taller. The movie makes statements such as when the knight is talking to his squire:Knight: "Have you ever killed a man before?"Squire: "No" Knight: "It is not a noble thing."Squire: "Even when it is for freedom?"Knight: "Even when it is for God." The battle really had nothing to do about freedom. The whole Magna Carta was designed to give rich barons more power over the king. It was a struggle within the feudal system as to who would be the boss. The serfs were still serfs no matter who sat on the throne. This movie takes place after King John is forced to sign the Magna Carta and then he instantly reneges on it. John employs the use of foreign mercenaries to go after and kill each of the barons who signed the document. Baron Albany decides to take a stand with a small group of fighters while waiting for help from the French...who will be their new king, all the while spouting about the "freedom of men." The movie climaxes at the siege of Rochester Castle which was initially turned into a battle and included a Knight Templar. The fighting includes blood splattering on the camera lens and a man being cut in half (lengthwise). The King's army manages to erect multiple ladders against the wall, fills them with soldiers, but apparently only 6 or so soldiers can make it over at a time and more can't come over until the previous ones have been killed... only in the movies. To add drama between the fighting, the castle baron's wife is not being serviced properly by the baron. She (Kate Mara as Lady Isabel) has eyes for the Knight Templar (James Purefoy as Thomas Marshall) who has taken an oath of chastity. (Guess how that works out.) The cruelty displayed by King John at the end is historical. James Purefoy was lame in his character, perhaps by intention. More of Giamatti was needed. Not as good as "Robin Hood" or "Season of the Witch" but better than Roger Corman's "Cyclops." Brief nudity (not Kate), no F-bombs, brief sex.

29 April 2012

HIT OR MISS BUT STILL IN GOOD FUN

This is a very focused tale dealing with English Medieval History in regards to the siege of Rochester Castle. King John who was probably better known as brother to Richard the Lionheart and son to Eleanor of Aquitaine is struggling to hold his kingdom together against barons desiring more rights, being denied such and then going to war. Part of these events all led to the Magna Carta of 1215 though it's mostly inaccurate to compare it to the rights of all individuals (as done in the film) as it was basically designed to increase the rights of the lesser nobility. There's lots of gore and grittiness to this picture but somewhere along the makings of this film money promised was not given and you can see that it suffers in certain parts. James Purefoy (best known as Mark Antony in HBO's ROME) plays a cynical Templar Knight who ends up helping at the defense of the castle with some of his other allies. The additional cast was impressive but underutilized: Paul Giamatti (as King John), Derek Jacobi and Kate Mara. Historical inaccuracies (too many to list and I suspect most viewers don't care because who cares about History, right?) bring the grade down for me some but it was still a fun, gritty film. People with weak stomachs will need to turn away during certain scenes. As I said above partly in the defense of this film it's funding fell apart during the making. I suspect there was executive producer conflict as well as 18 people got credits as executive producers. Anyway, the budget for this was $25M and Worldwide Box Office was a disappointing $2.5M. STORY/PLOTTING: B minus to B; CHARACTERS/DIALOGUE: B minus; ACTION/GRITTINESS: B to B plus; HISTORICAL ACCURACY: C plus to B minus; WHEN WATCHED: early January 2012 (streamed); OVERALL GRADE: B minus to B.

mikelang42

28 April 2012

Tip top medieval English gore-flick

This hack and slash classy English historical movie set in the year1215, tells the mostly true story of the vile King John,played withwonderful abandon by the great actor Paul Giamatti with a perfectEnglish accent,who for reasons to many for this review lays siege toRochester Castle in Kent.The castle looks the real deal, but it wasbuilt for the film in the beautiful countryside of Wales.The budget wassmall in USA terms,£20 million, but the film looks fantastic and beliesit's low budget.The main theme music by Paul Brady is beautiful.Thecast is the cream of British actors, the likes of James Purefoy,BrianCox,Derek Jacobi,Charles Dance and Jason Fleming.Mackenzie Crook andnew young actor Aneurin Barnard shine in supporting roles along withfemale lead Kate Mara.It is a very gory movie with proper stunt workrather than reliance on CGI.Here in UK it got a 15 cert.If you likethis sort of film, think a smaller version of El Cid, then your in fora treat.For reasons i don't understand this cracking good film sat on ashelf for over a year to get a release.In my view, a must see.

26 April 2012

A Crimson Piece Of Medieval History

Writer, Producer, Director Jonathan English has unleashed an incredibly gritty balls to the wall reenactment of the battle of Rochester Castle in 13th Century England and utilizes its terrain and turrets in Kent as its backdrop. Lensed almost entirely in Wales, 'IRONCLAD' is another grand scale epic made overseas and without the CGI hi-jinks of big budget Hollywood no-brainers. The film will be remembered for its battle scenes but its the brilliant performances by its main actors that makes this film outshine its predecessors. It includes James Purefoy who was an excellent Marc Anthony in the HBO miniseries 'ROME' shining as Thomas, a Templer Knight torn between his allegiances; Kate Mara ,the other woman in AMC's hit series 'AMERICAN HORROR STORY' is emerging as an incredible actress in her own right and excels as a frustrated young wife of an older Baron from an arranged marriage; the always reliable Brian Cox; the venerable Derek Jacobi; and a shattering performance by Paul Giamatti as King John which should give him another notch on his belt of memorable characters. Although the film tends to sag in the middle, its the superb photography by David Eggby and snap-crackle-pop editing by Peter Amundson which will rattle your cranium. Add a wonderfully symphonic Celtic score by composer Lorne Balfe and you have a bloody good time for all lovers of Epics and films of honor. Arcentertainment presents it in a beautiful 2.35 widescreen transfer with 5.1 Dolby Stereo with an audio commentary by Jonathan English and theatrical trailer for the film as its only special features. The box boasts a one liner stating the film is 'SEVEN SAMURAI' meets 'BRAVEHEART', I could not have said it better myself.

Tiw Lado

25 April 2012

OK, But is Jonathan English... English?

...And here's what I mean: The movie is absolutely watchable (if youare a fan of historical action, medieval theme and hack n' slash ofcourse). The Battle scenes are shot perfectly. Costumes are not 100%authentic, but not so fantasy-driven as other "historical" movies tendto create these days, but: In places the movie raises the question: didthe director any historical research prior to arm his team with camerasand lights or not at all? How, being English, is possible to not knowown history if not in details, than at least to some degree? The casehere is not about "artistic freedom", that sometimes demands tosacrifice realism or fact to make an art better. The inaccuracies occurhere in places, where there aren't any necessity of them.The rip-offs from the other movies were obvious as well. I don't knowwhether the authors really did intend to make "medieval magnificentseven" but if they did, they failed. Each character in MagnificentSeven is someone you deeply care. Someone you deeply know. Someone whoyou never forget. Each of them is unique.Here: They are seven as well. They have one womanizer. They have on guywho throws knifes. They have one unexperienced youngster who asks forthe trouble. They have one huge guy who chops wood when the group isapproaching him... But that's it. That's where similarities end.Neither of these characters have any charisma.Out of two main villains, one plays it's part really good, while otherhas not much to do except swinging the huge Axe.Templar - the main protagonist of the movie, is played well as well...but again, his character is cliché as well and not as deep as writerscould have imagined. (No fault of the actor here. He worked with whathe had).Plot is simple and somewhat unrealistic. 7 heroes, together with random11 soldiers are guarding the castle from thousands of bad guys. (OneEnglish king and whining Danes who run at the first sight of bloodamong their ranks.Bad guys need castle so badly because it's on the strategic spot on theEnglish map and if King who regrets signing Magna Carta wants to ruleautocratically once again, he must take it at all costs.Here you will need all your suspend of disbelief to not raise thequestions such as: why the rebels have sent only 7 men withquestionable reputation to hold such an important spot...Overall, like I said in the beginning of this review, the movie iswatchable. If you're looking for some good action, blood and gore,you'll get what you paid for. If you're history buff though and easilyoffended about historical inaccuracies, you can avoid this one.