Way better than one would think based on its trailers and posters. Not a hodge podge euro pudding afterall but a pretty well cast historical action film/castle siege picture. James Purefoy quite good as a templar knight disillusioned by the crusades well matched by robust performances by Brian Cox, Jason Flemyng and a scenery chewing Paul Giamatti. Traditional effects a nice change from cgi. Kate Mara awful.
Nothing more than a low budget Ridley Scott historic "epic". This movie could have done with less dialog to save it from being utterly abysmal since no one bothered to write a sensible script. Paul Giamatti belongs in a better movie playing a better historic if not fictional figure. Everyone else pretty much sucked. And as a would be medieval weapons historian let me say this movie is about 10% accurate. AVOID.
Rooted in the history of the magna carta of King John's England, the story is simple yet effective. The action is as shockingly, brutally violent as it is plentiful, and there is some very nice work done on what seems to be a considerably low budget. Unlike most new siege-action films, à la Centurion and The Eagle, Ironclad is refreshing and its characters are likeable. Watch alongside Black Death - both are great.
Nothing spectacular but if you're in the mood for a good Medieval flick, this one delivers. The battles are well-done and bloody, with broadswords cleaving bodies in half. Paul Giamatti engages in some full on spittle-on-beard scenery chewing as King John, but I was most impressed with James Purefoy's legitimately bad-ass Templar Knight. I'd gladly watch Purefoy in a modern day action movie.