Wordiezett So much average

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Time Saver 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.

TeresaCarledo This film is typical example of what is wrong in modern cinema. If it had been made in 1950's, it would have been impressive, gorgeously photographed Technicolor spectacle with clean clothes and dialogue, no gore and zero realism. Made in 2011, Ironclad looks drab and boring, with gore, dirt and foul language, because Realism, but historical accuracy is STILL thrown out of the window, because that's too much realism. In one scene main villain orders the herd of pigs burned alive - it didn't actually happen but THIS IS MACHO FLICK FOR MANLY MEN, DAMMIT! Add clichéd script and miscast Kate Mara as medieval female warrior a'la Jeanne D 'Arc, and the result, shall we say, is not overtly impressive.

gary-444 As a medieval gore-fest this film has some merit. The story itself loosely hangs around a historical context of King John, Magna Carta and the siege of Rochester. Although of dubious historical accuracy, when you tell a story from several hundred years ago, it would be foolish to carp too much on accuracy which tends to be pretty subjective in the circumstances.The cast is quite strong , featuring the likes of Derek Jacobi, Charles Dance, and Brian Cox. Characterisation is basic, but the story is driven by numerous action sequences which are convincing and compelling. At two hours, the story probably over runs by about 30 minutes, but just when interest is starting to fade up pops another battle.What defines this production is its blood and gore. The commanders of Islamic State will have been furiously taking notes as tongues, feet and hands are severed and a dismembered body is catapulted towards the enemy. The rebels against King John are unconvincingly small in number straining credibility but making the storytelling a little easier.If you like bloody historical drama, illuminated by a fiendishly evil and erratic King John, you will enjoy this movie.

Mischief810 This is definitely not a chick flick. If Braveheart and 300 are some of your favorite flicks, you'll be adding Ironclad to your list. Look, neither Braveheart nor 300 were completely accurate. Sometimes, the screenwriter needs a little leeway, and this film does just that. We watch, we enjoy, we forgive.However, the script is well written. The film is well directed and extraordinarily well acted.You really do get the sense of the squalid, brutal conditions humans endured in medieval times. You also get a solid sense of mankind's ability for atrocity during the "dark ages."What you also get is a series of very gory battle action scenes, a despicable villain, the tale of a man torn by his calling, and a little bit of a love story thrown in to boot. What's not to like, here?Find time to watch this one. You won't be disappointed.