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.
Ironclad
2011
Action / Adventure / Drama / History / Romance / War

Ironclad
2011
Action / Adventure / Drama / History / Romance / War
Synopsis
It is the year 1215 and the rebel barons of England have forced their despised King John to put his royal seal to the Magna Carta, a noble, seminal document that upheld the rights of free men. Yet within months of pledging himself to the great charter, the King reneged on his word and assembled a mercenary army on the south coast of England with the intention of bringing the barons and the country back under his tyrannical rule. Barring his way stood the mighty Rochester castle, a place that would become the symbol of the rebel's momentous struggle for justice and freedom.
Uploaded By: OTTO
September 14, 2012 at 04:25 AM
Director
Cast
Movie Reviews
Forgive the historical inaccuracies and it's an enjoyable film
Historic events should not be changed this much. Although...FIGHT!!!
OK. Ironclad. First comment, Blood and Guts. And lots of it. One thing did bug me was it's somewhat historic inaccuracy. If you are making a film about a well documented piece of history, get it right and don't sacrifice it in an attempt at a good story. The fighting scenes, in which there are many, seemed quite realistic. Extreme amount of blood, severed limbs and heads.
To be honest, not much else to the film except some good old fashioned hand to hand combat. Not one of these films where you have to watch and listen to everything. Just feel free to turn off your brain for a couple of hours and enjoy. If you are after a good storyline, look elsewhere. If you just want to see a good old Hack and Slash, which I found OK, then this is for you.
Remember, if you going to make a film based on real events, no matter how loosely, don't change most of important historical characters and for gods sake, don't change the outcome!! It's as bad as making a film of the Battle of the Little Bighorn showing Custer winning over the Indians and surviving!!
Good movie
It was a great movie, but it REALLY sank in my eyes when the danish people started screaming KURWA, which is polish not danish.. But other than that i would have given it 6, but this little mistake was huge in my eyes. Good and plenty of Action. A lot of blood and wounds showing, so if you're not a fan of that, i wouldn't suggest watching this.