Ironclad

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.

There are plenty of lower-budget independent films that have gone on to be more critically acclaimed and more financially profitable than big-budget Hollywood pictures. What is rare, however, is an indie film that masquerades as one of these pictures. A self-labelled "all- star indie action blockbuster" and "inspired by history",'Ironclad' is such a film, trying to redefine the boundaries of British cinema.

Whether by intention or by coincidence, 'Ironclad' picks up a few years after the end of Ridley Scott's 'Robin Hood'. It is England, 1215. King John (Paul Giamatti) has been forced to sign the Magna Carta, which limits his power and ensures the freedom of men.

With the help of a Danish army, the King rampages across the country to regain absolute power. Baron Albany (Brian Cox) and a band of rebels take Rochester Castle in an attempt to stop the tyrant king. A siege takes place, and the rebels must hold the castle until reinforcements arrive.

The film certainly ticks many of the boxes of an action blockbuster. There's a clear "big bad guy vs. underdog good guy" vibe, plenty of action, and some veterans among the B-list cast. The $25 million budget, although pocket change in Hollywood, shows how badly this indie film wants to be big. A big film, however, is not necessarily a good film.

'Ironclad' is at its strongest when it comes to the physical side of things. It does not shy away from gory violence. Heads, hands and feet go flying, blood splatters all over the the camera's lens, and there's a particularly nasty bit involving a man and a catapult. The weapons feel like instruments of destruction rather than Medieval-chic accessories, and often succeed in making viewers wince.

The fight choreography is particularly impressive - characters look like soldiers trying to tear each others' hearts out, as opposed to actors trying to high-five each other's swords. The action sacrifices style and appearance for physicality and brutality, which results in a refreshing level of authenticity.

The 13th century England recreated looks good enough to fool anyone but a history buff. Giamatti and Cox play their roles with conviction and succeed in getting the story moving. Giamatti is particularly watchable, playing King John as an unhinged sadist.

The narrative is where 'Ironclad' falters. Fully aware that the film is essentially about a group of soldiers in a building, the writers have tried to spice things up. One of the rebels (James Purefoy) happens to be a Templar Knight. He regrets killing people for God, so he goes on a diet of silence and chastity, the latter of which is tested (of course) by the lady of the castle (Kate Mara). These are ill-advised attempts at emotional content and only serve to distract from what should have been a simpler, more polished affair.

Regrettably, the filmmakers decided to emulate that most repulsive staple of modern action blockbusters - the shaky-cam. Specifically namechecking 'Transformers 2' and the 'Bourne' sequels as influences (not a good sign), they decided to shake the picture to create "a very real sense of action".

What is achieved instead is a very real sense of frustration every time the action is made unnecessarily incoherent. Once again, the "Michael Bay Effect" has ruined a film that would have otherwise looked excellent, and wasted the work of an obviously talented action choreographer.

Despite its flaws, fans of mud'n'blood, hack'n'slash mini-epics will find plenty to like in 'Ironclad'. It is comparable to 'Robin Hood' despite costing $130 million less to make. Director Jonathan English wanted to create an action blockbuster. In terms of scale and ambition, he has succeeded. But blockbusters aren't perfect, and neither is this.

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.

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.

Even though historically inaccurate, I found this movie appealing, due to its gloomy atmosphere, raw characters and great fighting performances.

Filmed with low budget, the story focuses on a specific event, therein lacking certain depth and dynamics. Although poorly developed, the characters are well chosen and give the impression that they actually belong to that time and place. I especially liked how James Purefoy expressed the dark of his character.

The fighting scenes are realistic, brutal and very convincing, and it is a real drawback that the chaotic camera movement spoiled that which is best in this movie.

If you like raw medieval action, violence and gore, then this is the movie for you.