CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.1/10
45 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
En la Inglaterra del siglo XIII, un caballero templario y algunos de barones luchan para defender el castillo de Rochester contra el tiránico rey Juan.En la Inglaterra del siglo XIII, un caballero templario y algunos de barones luchan para defender el castillo de Rochester contra el tiránico rey Juan.En la Inglaterra del siglo XIII, un caballero templario y algunos de barones luchan para defender el castillo de Rochester contra el tiránico rey Juan.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
Definitely shot in a Ridley Scott fashion this is an effective medieval pot-boiler with some moral vision and lots and lots of gruesome full-on combat scenes - without a doubt some of the more bone-crunching, blood squelching fights of recent memory.
Is a great movie? No. It never quite delivers on its promise, and though extremely competent it just can't quite produce that true magic that better films can. It is, however, a highly competent and interesting historical drama. I have some quibbles with costuming etc; but that kind of goes with the territory.
All in all, this is a full-on medieval siege account of the Siege of Rochester -it is well made is most respects and if medieval battles are your thing then you'll be into it.
Is a great movie? No. It never quite delivers on its promise, and though extremely competent it just can't quite produce that true magic that better films can. It is, however, a highly competent and interesting historical drama. I have some quibbles with costuming etc; but that kind of goes with the territory.
All in all, this is a full-on medieval siege account of the Siege of Rochester -it is well made is most respects and if medieval battles are your thing then you'll be into it.
Firstly I am quite realistic about my expectations when a historical movie is made. Real history does not generally run smoothly nor is it engaging enough to fit conveniently into a 2 hour movie, so I refuse to nick-pick a screen writer for adding a little poetic license into a script or for the costume designer who doesn't have the time or resources to get the actors "just right".
With this in mind, I found the story enjoyable and it ran more or less historically and at a good pace, I was certainly never given enough pause to consider boredom. The fight scenes were very good and I agree with other criticisms on the reviews about the shaking camera making it extremely hard to concentrate on what was happening.
There was plenty of blood, limbs and sliced heads to appeal to the gore fest/action fans but it seemed to accurately reflect the face of medieval warfare with its close and gruesome nature.
The cast were a list of well known and respected actors, all of whom put in a good display with what they were given with Paul Giamatti's rant about the divinity of Kings being especially engaging.
Overall its not a classic nor will it win awards, but for a couple of hours action based escapism it is certainly worth the effort of watching and is far superior to a number of bigger budget Hollywood contemporaries.
With this in mind, I found the story enjoyable and it ran more or less historically and at a good pace, I was certainly never given enough pause to consider boredom. The fight scenes were very good and I agree with other criticisms on the reviews about the shaking camera making it extremely hard to concentrate on what was happening.
There was plenty of blood, limbs and sliced heads to appeal to the gore fest/action fans but it seemed to accurately reflect the face of medieval warfare with its close and gruesome nature.
The cast were a list of well known and respected actors, all of whom put in a good display with what they were given with Paul Giamatti's rant about the divinity of Kings being especially engaging.
Overall its not a classic nor will it win awards, but for a couple of hours action based escapism it is certainly worth the effort of watching and is far superior to a number of bigger budget Hollywood contemporaries.
Released in 2011, "Ironclad" is based on the real-life siege of Rochester Castle by the pompous and loathsome King John (Paul Giamatti) in 1215. In real life the castle was protected by 95 to 140 knights supported by crossbowmen, sergeants, and others, but in the film there are less than 20 fighting men. I suppose this keeps the social interplay in the fortress less complicated. The main protagonist is a solemn Templar, Thomas Marshal (James Purefoy), loosely based on medieval knight/statesman William Marshal. The others include the historical leader of the defense, Baron William d'Aubigny (Brian Cox), a squire (Aneurin Barnard), and various characters played by Jason Flemyng, Jamie Foreman, Rhys Parry Jones, amongst others.
I won't tell you what happens in the film, but in real life King John takes the castle and the nobles were either imprisoned or exiled. Also, the foreign mercenaries John enlists were mostly Flemish, Provençals and Aquitainians, not Danes, and the French didn't arrive until six months after John took the castle. Speaking of the Danes, they're depicted as decidedly pagan when Denmark was already thoroughly Christianized by that point. Lastly, William d'Aubigny was not an ennobled wool merchant and what happens to him at the end of the siege is fictional.
If you can handle historical deviations like these "Ironclad" is a very worthwhile medieval film. The action is realistic and brutal and the main characters are decent to strong. The score and cinematography are top-rate. On the womanly front, Kate Mara plays the platonic wife of Baron Reginald de Cornhill (Derek Jacobi), who becomes infatuated during the siege by the mysterious Templar. Will Marshal give-in to her feminine charms or won't he? Also on hand is Bree Condon as the utterly stunning full-maned brunette Agnes. Unfortunately, not enough is done with the women.
Although not as good as "King Arthur," "Tristan + Isolde" and "Black Death," my three favorite medieval movies, "Ironclad" plays better IMHO than (the overrated) "Braveheart." I'd put it on par with 2010's "Robin Hood," "Rob Roy" and "First Knight."
The film runs 121 minutes and was shot entirely on location in Wales, UK.
GRADE: Borderline B or B+
I won't tell you what happens in the film, but in real life King John takes the castle and the nobles were either imprisoned or exiled. Also, the foreign mercenaries John enlists were mostly Flemish, Provençals and Aquitainians, not Danes, and the French didn't arrive until six months after John took the castle. Speaking of the Danes, they're depicted as decidedly pagan when Denmark was already thoroughly Christianized by that point. Lastly, William d'Aubigny was not an ennobled wool merchant and what happens to him at the end of the siege is fictional.
If you can handle historical deviations like these "Ironclad" is a very worthwhile medieval film. The action is realistic and brutal and the main characters are decent to strong. The score and cinematography are top-rate. On the womanly front, Kate Mara plays the platonic wife of Baron Reginald de Cornhill (Derek Jacobi), who becomes infatuated during the siege by the mysterious Templar. Will Marshal give-in to her feminine charms or won't he? Also on hand is Bree Condon as the utterly stunning full-maned brunette Agnes. Unfortunately, not enough is done with the women.
Although not as good as "King Arthur," "Tristan + Isolde" and "Black Death," my three favorite medieval movies, "Ironclad" plays better IMHO than (the overrated) "Braveheart." I'd put it on par with 2010's "Robin Hood," "Rob Roy" and "First Knight."
The film runs 121 minutes and was shot entirely on location in Wales, UK.
GRADE: Borderline B or B+
I am not an expert on the period this film covers but reading reviews on here and then reading up on the period it is clear that it is not historically accurate. I can see why this would upset some people but for me watching a film is just pure entertainment not a history lesson so it is not something that concerns me too much. The fact that someone makes a film about a specific period in history may, as it did with me, make them get the facts for themselves.
As for the film itself it is nothing if not entertaining. The plot is made clear and therefore unlike some historical action films you actually get to know what's going on and why. In a nutshell a small band of knights have to defend a castle against hordes of King Johns men something along the lines of Zulu. There is a fair bit of tension and the fights are bloody and brutal.
The acting is nothing special though I thought Paul Giamatti was good as King John. The camera work is at times annoyingly shaky especially during the battle scenes but there is also some nice scenery in the few quieter spells.
Ironclad might fail historically but it does succeed in entertaining and that ultimately is what counts.
As for the film itself it is nothing if not entertaining. The plot is made clear and therefore unlike some historical action films you actually get to know what's going on and why. In a nutshell a small band of knights have to defend a castle against hordes of King Johns men something along the lines of Zulu. There is a fair bit of tension and the fights are bloody and brutal.
The acting is nothing special though I thought Paul Giamatti was good as King John. The camera work is at times annoyingly shaky especially during the battle scenes but there is also some nice scenery in the few quieter spells.
Ironclad might fail historically but it does succeed in entertaining and that ultimately is what counts.
Ironclad is a fictionalized medieval war movie set in Britain during the second rebellion against King John, brought about by his dismissal of the Magna Carta he was forced to sign in the first rebellion against him and his attempts to punish those who forced him to sign it.
The movie is basically about a Templar and a small group of soldiers who are attempting to hold Rochester Castle, the key to southern England, against the siege of John's superior army and Danish mercenaries. Ironclad is nothing special, but it's entertaining enough. There are a few faces you'll probably recognize among the cast, like Brian Cox, Paul Giamatti, and Kate Mara. I doubt any of the actors or actresses will be up for many awards (though Giamatti, as King John, does get a memorable scene or three), but they do good enough jobs that I had no complaints.
The look of the film is reminiscent of other recent similarly set action movies, like Black Death and Centurion. Very bleak, grey, and violent. Blood splashes all over the place during the frequent battle scenes, limbs are hacked off, and gaping wounds abound. This isn't a movie for the squeamish.
As I mentioned before, Ironclad isn't a huge step forward for this kind of film, but it succeeds well enough at what it attempts to do for me to give it a positive review. See it, if you're interested.
The movie is basically about a Templar and a small group of soldiers who are attempting to hold Rochester Castle, the key to southern England, against the siege of John's superior army and Danish mercenaries. Ironclad is nothing special, but it's entertaining enough. There are a few faces you'll probably recognize among the cast, like Brian Cox, Paul Giamatti, and Kate Mara. I doubt any of the actors or actresses will be up for many awards (though Giamatti, as King John, does get a memorable scene or three), but they do good enough jobs that I had no complaints.
The look of the film is reminiscent of other recent similarly set action movies, like Black Death and Centurion. Very bleak, grey, and violent. Blood splashes all over the place during the frequent battle scenes, limbs are hacked off, and gaping wounds abound. This isn't a movie for the squeamish.
As I mentioned before, Ironclad isn't a huge step forward for this kind of film, but it succeeds well enough at what it attempts to do for me to give it a positive review. See it, if you're interested.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaAccording to Writer and Director Jonathan English, the bloody hackings of arms and legs were not done with CGI, but with old-fashioned prosthetics.
- ErroresIn 1215, Rochester was already a sizable city. When Rochester castle is seen in the film, there is no sign of the dwellings that would have comprised the city, nor of the cathedral, which is a massive building, situated about one hundred yards from the castle. The cathedral was looted by King John's forces, during the siege.
- Créditos curiososAs the last end credits roll, there is the following language: No animals were harmed in the filming of this picture. "Especially Newts. "
- ConexionesFeatured in Breakfast: Episode dated 25 February 2011 (2011)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Ironclad?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- Ironclad
- Locaciones de filmación
- Tree Tower Manor, Gales, Reino Unido(Archbishop's residence)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 25,000,000 (estimado)
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 5,151,023
- Tiempo de ejecución2 horas 1 minuto
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
By what name was Templario (2011) officially released in India in Hindi?
Responda