Ironclad [Blu-ray] [2011] [Region Free]

This is not like '300' as highlighted on the dvd jacket --- '300' is visually stunning and far more visceral, a joyful entertainment fest from start to finish even though it's historical accuracy was questionable. 'Ironclad' can't cover up it's flouting of history as it doesn't entertain as much given the plot which is a cross between 'The Magnificent Seven' and almost any knights in armour siege epic such as 'The Vikings' or that Charlton Heston film, 'The War Lord'.For something like this film was intended to be the cinematography is dire and dull, the colour saturated out of the fight scenes like a sponge being rung out of water. This kind of intended visceral action comes over very muted and flat, not stunning as intended. However that's only my view, the film generated enough interest for a sequel to be made, 'Ironclad 2', which I have no desire to watch if it's anything like this original.On the plus side James Purefoy and Brian Cox are very watchable, the oddly miscast Paul Giamatti as King John less so. Oh for an Alan Rickman playing an over the top 'nasty' that can light up the screen.English language and subtitles. No extras.

This film could and should have been much better than it actually is. It has some great actors who do the best with what they have (and only one or two not so great performances - King John, I'm looking at you), it has rich source material to work from (courtesy of the story surrounding the Magna Carta and the tyrannical King John's betrayal of it) and it has the balls to show medieval uprisings as the bloody gore fests that they often were.But sadly the direction is so weak in parts and the characters so lightly developed and heavily cliched that this almost completely overshadows the film's merits. To make matters worse, the cinematography and post-production is relatively abysmal in parts - the film is grainy and shaky like it's been shot on a camcorder purchased in 1994 and the picture is often flat with no depth and seems to have had no attention to saturation / colourisation what so ever, often leaving the picture feeling very washed out.This might have stood out less had the film's cover not had the wildly misleading line that it features "..the same stylised action as the film 300". Say what now!? Not unless there was an earlier version of the film 300 from a couple of decades ago which I missed - visually the films couldn't be more different.Deviations from historical accuracy aside, the direction and portrayal of men under siege holding a castle is also often lacking and misfired. Some of the ridiculous decisions and actions of the men in the castle were infuriating enough for me have to vocalise my dismay and shout at the TV screen, which is never a good thing. Or endearing.But despite all that I made it through the whole film (although felt disengaged enough at a handful of points to go and grab a drink/food without rushing or pausing the film) and the overall premise and story is good enough to stay tuned to see what happens, it just could have been much, much better - a situation made worse by the heightened expectations from the over-generous blurb on the cover.

I got this, to be honest, to see ANEURIN BARNARD, who I think is incredibly talented, and extremely nice to look at !!!. This film also has some other actors I like ( James Purefoy, Derek Jacobi and Jason Flemyng ) but Aneurin was THE main attraction, and the reason for wanting to watch and buy this film.It's a graphic film, very bloody and the special effects of the slicing and dicing is impressive. I admit to having to peek through my fingers at times ( NOT when Aneurin was on screen, obviously ! ) like when a brutal end was apparent. For some reason, although the cover states that there was subtitling, I couldn't get them on my dvd player, and they would have been helpful as there's a lot of action, and times when dialogue is missed because of that, or because there is just so much going on.I was actually born in Rochester, Kent but ending up living across the Medway in Strood - visiting and going into Rochester Castle was a frequent, and enjoyable outing for me as a teenager - so this film had added attraction for me - apart from Aneurin. Honestly !.I wouldn't recommend eating while watching it, unless you have a strong stomach - I did feel rather queasy at some of the methods of despatch !. It's perhaps a bit light on the plot line but a very good film, and definitely worth a look.

Some scenes are extremely gory and it’s (very loosely) based on historical events. Of course, there’s a love interest even though he was a strict Knight Templar but, to be honest, the story is really about the fighting. And there’s lot’s of it and, as said, it can be quite bloody.Much better than a lot of the films of similar type that all seemed to come out at the same time, this is really work a watch.

This film is very good-not for the too faint -hearted,but true to what occured in those days[as far as we know,of course!].King John was indeed a brutal/spendthrift sovereign.who signed,and then renogated on his Magna Carta agreement.This film shows just a small part of the struggle to lessen a King of his supreme power over one and all--and eventually[very eventually]it happened. 'WELL DONE' to the effects team as some of the special effects were very good indeed---some others,well,perhaps a little laughable.Anyway,the struggle for the 'ordinary'folks is something we knew already[WHERE IS A 'MAGNA CARTA 2,THESE DAYS??!!!]All in all,a good film--good acting from some cast members and a little 'over the top'perhaps from others,BUT recommended.