Ironclad - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Ironclad Reviews

Page 2 of 37
½ February 1, 2016
Couldn't even finish this turd of a film. Story is quite terrible - I stopped watching and decided that packing the dishwasher would be more enjoyable
January 1, 2016
slow, slow, slow. Good cast though
½ October 23, 2015
I think it's funny that people complain that the movie is too bloody and too dark. It was a bloody period during the Dark Ages, get it? History much? The battle itself was a damn bloody battle. That being said, you can't ignore the great talent in this film, a few of my favorite actors: Paul Giamatti (in a role tailored to his natural heavy presence), Brian Cox (ditto) and the Shakespearian Brit James Purefoy. The film generally has an intelligence of script as well as presence and pace that is commendable and enjoyable. Sure, it is a little dark and bloody, but if you came for light and lack of blood, go watch a Pixar film. The only complaint I have is that the ending does drag a bit, but overall well done. No major complaints from this blood thirsty viewer.
September 23, 2015
A nice history lesson and a bloody action film, "Ironclad" tells us that the evil King John (the same mofo from Robin Hood) was even a bigger dick than what was told. Losing most of his royal power when forced to sign the Magna Carta treaty, King John (Paul Giamatti) manages to get himself an new army and is slowly killing all who signed the treaty. Fighting back is Baron Albany (Brian Cox) who with the help of a templar knight Marshal (James Purefoy) and few other loyalist manages to hold the keep of Rochester Castle before King John, since it holds a strategic value. With promise of help coming from the french, the men must hold the castle or die trying.
Overall, it was good sword & axe epic,the cast is quite good and so is the action but with the sudden and veeeery forced romance side-plot it loses some of it's mojo. But I like history and I didn't know this story, so that added it's entertainment value.
August 13, 2015
Ironclad is a solidly entertaining film, low on character development,high on bloody action, the acting for the most part suits the film and is generally watchable, though Paul Giamatti is never convincing enough as an English King. I'm not too sure how historically accurate the film is but as Braveheart and Gladiator proved you don't need accuracy to enjoy a film.

This was certainly a pleasant surprise as I actually ended up liking it, it's a trashy film but those are the best kind. There are worse films in this sort of genre of historical epic adventures and small band of misfits against an army of thousands. So makes the saying "you could do worse than this" quite apt.

In the end while it's by no means a keeper, it is one you can put on sit back relax and watch with brain in neutral, definitely one to find on you local streaming service for a late night.
½ June 30, 2015
lack-luster story with a hefty amount of blood spill. Feels as if the entire film rests on swordplay and heavy armor. If that is your preference, look no further.
½ June 9, 2015
Decent acting, but Ironclad possesses poor writing and thinly drawn characters who you care little about. The romantic plot line was, dare I say it, stupid, and the film itself was rather unoriginal. However, the costuming and look of the film are great, and for the most part believable in this Alamo parallel, despite some shoddy effects work here and there.
May 31, 2015
Awful, it had such a wonderful cast, I was so grossly disappointed. Gratuitous blood and gore. Could not even sit through the entire film.
May 25, 2015
Ironclad is a dark, bloody movie about the King John of England that signs the Magna Carta only to dismiss the document and rage war against the barons. Good cast, but I am sure a much better English actor could have played a better role than Paul Giamatti. Paul is a great actor but not as an English King. Overall it was a good movie, with a good plot. Okay to watch once.
October 10, 2014
Interesting film, something that's seen less and less. It does a pretty good job, but still I wasn't sure what to rate it, either 6 or 7 out of 10. It is a pretty violent, gory film, something that really surprised me. It has good effects, good story and looks very real for the most part. The acting and script was pretty good, it had some bad moments, and in fact was a little deprived at times of diologe, because of the main characters vow of silence. He does speak, and is a pretty cool and badass character, until there's women involved. It's supposed to be about the 'magnificent seven' but other than our main guy, nobody seems that magnificent. Their just a few ragtag people who were put into a group and of course are unbeatable. I don't know how historically correct this film is, but it seems a little far fetched to me. Anyway it's entertaining to watch, the story is cool, and it's over the top brutal and gory. Some of the gore looks fake and CGI, but at the same time it dosent, and for the most part it all looks strikingly real. The characters are good and liked, except of course the king their fighting against. The ending was good, with a great heroic and sad last battle, in which I thought might end in a twist but didn't. Anyway pretty good, summed up by the words, awkward, gory, authentic. The only reason this movie really holds up at all is because there is no competition, no movies that are about this topic that take it seriously without the use of witches of magic and crap like that.
December 26, 2014
Its directed with a grimy realism and some of the action is impressive, but it's just too hopeless. There isn't a single cathartic moment here. It all feels soaked in poor attempts at sentiment, and so much gore that it could make the most hardened of action fans feel uncomfortable. In a word: gross.
December 28, 2014
To much gratuitous violence. Problems with flow. Great cast.
December 18, 2014
Knights Templar fight to defend a castle from a murderous King. A King bent on taking control of others lands.
December 16, 2014
I love the Middle Ages, so I was really willing to like this movie, but I simply couldn't - there were too many cruel and disgusting scenes in it...:(
December 6, 2014
Mediocre TV movie with slightly more gore
November 20, 2014
A very odd cast made up of a few famous names from either side of the pond and a few cast-off's from UK hooligan films. The historical element was there but not important to the film as it was basically a series of battles over a castle. The battles themselves though were pretty unique to this type of period film as they were super gory. The effects money was all spent on making a realistic attempt at showing people being cut up, and it was a real surprise at how effective it was. Gotta say that the whole film was ruined by the ending, surely that never happened in real history.
November 12, 2014
- - ?????????????????? ????????????? ?????????????
July 6, 2011
Alright. Some wacky ass characters. But not a bad film.
March 4, 2011
Gory and one dimensional with a wee bit of history thrown in
½ October 7, 2014
Great film! Visually striking! It kept me entertained from beginning to end. Brian Cox puts on a great performance as always. I trust everyone will enjoy this film.
Page 2 of 37