Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Animenter There are women in the film, but none has anything you could call a personality.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

denis888 That was a very interesting episode in the US Civil War when two huge ironclads, Merrimack and Monitor, clashed nearby the Cpnfederate coast, where the Union Navy was blockading the land. This TV film is rather simple as for special effects, but still, they are very well done for this decent take. Virginia Madsen is a real gem here, she is extremely feminine, beautiful, but also very smart, brave, cool and courageous in spite of all the danger, even gallows. The plot itself is very good, too, and it is a pity that the film is not long enough to make it a longer, better, greater epic a la Gettysburg. Even that, Ironclads is a very good piece of work. The scene of execution of a spy is a real powerful moment, showing real courage and valor, and the main sea battle is tense, terse, brutal, fast and ferocious, just as any real battle is. The Black slaves characters are very sympathetic, too, with Beatrice Bush really shining as Opal. The whole movie is never boring, and really very deep in depicting both sides of the war. Why only 8? Not enough character development, still, and some scenes were made real cheap.

floridawar I remember reading with great relish of this impending project in the pages of Civil War Times Illustrated back in 1990. Fresh off the heels of Glory, I was hooked and couldn't wait for the next BIG Civil War flick. Well, I finally saw it on cable a year later, and was generally disappointed. Regardless, I recently purchased a copy on VHS and have watched it a couple of times to kill time. My conclusions are as follows:The love story is boring. I can only assume that the only reason it is included here is because the script was based to some degree on the two previous Monitor/Merrimac films (Confederate Ironclad (1910), and Hearts in Bondage (1936); though I have never seen either, both revolve around a female spy/love story/battle of the ironclads triad).The espionage factor is interesting, and even more so Madsen's character's conversion from a Union spy to to something of a double agent (of course to save her boyfriend, see love story above...)Overall I must conclude that the above was all just filler to keep production costs down. The love story is even absent on the cover art of the video box (features two models rather than production stars). One of the actors says in the movie "iron doesn't float," and that is certainly true of the leaden script employed here. Alas, there are no elements relating to the extraordinary construction of the two main protagonists: the Monitor and Merrimac! These last two are the real stars of this production.When the above stars of the show do arrive, the tempo picks up as imagination is put into gear. I actually like the last half of the flick, and find the battle scenes well done for a television production. I almost wish they had just made a straight up documentary out of the models and action scenes. Unfortunately there are the obligatory cutaways to the perils of the love interest/spy/girlfriend...But hey, its a TV movie, and kills some time. I can recommend it only for the special effects, and for naval buffs.

JAMES BROOKS What can you say about a made-for-TV Civil War epic from Ted Turner's TNT Network ??? Well, considering that the money went into the great ships pictured in the battle, you aren't going to expect much of a story, beyond the basics.Of course, you do get a good cast of veterans (E.G. Marshall and Fritz Weaver in key roles), as well as some new faces (Reed Diamond)And it certainly doesn't hurt to have Virginia Madsen wearing a 'bussle', and for once, keeping it and the rest of her clothes on !!! NO SARCASM MEANT HERE, THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!! Whether this movie sinks or not, it is quite an accomplishment for her to play the role of the Southern belle with style and dignity, and still makes a play for two handsome swains from BOTH sides, without even revealing her petticoat !!!Of course she has to play the field, being a Union spy, and sometimes work gets in the way of a little romance, especially when she must shelter a Union sailor who is posing as a deserter, in order to transmit vital secrets about the Confederacy's new 'super weapon'.As a result, she almost gets her pretty little neck stretched for her near the end, as well as losing both of her romantic interests.Unfortunately, there aren't much fireworks beyond the big battle scene between the Monitor and the Merrimack (or Virginia), due to the need to be 'politically-correct' about certain subjects.But from what we have here, we learn something about a crucial event in American history, as well as being a harmless way to waste a Sunday afternoon, or whenever.

JeffCNN The problem with making a movie like this, though, is that the finale, the crème-de-la-creme of the movie, the battle between the two souped-up ships, must be done well. Disappointingly, this scene in Ironclads is obviously done completely with little model ships in an overgrown tub. There's no tension, little explanation of what exactly is going on and what the timeframe is of the stand-off.The film takes quite a few liberties with the surrounding story, as all true stories do when converted to a movie, such as the Union traitor and most notably that of Betty Stuart (Madsen), a Virginia belle.It resorts to making a possibly-decent movie involving an interesting story on the ironclads to preaching about the evils of slavery. It was out of place in this historical drama, and was a cheap ploy to bring in the women viewers. It only succeeded in lessening the positives about the film.