Watch Ironclad For Free

Just perfect...

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

The acting in this movie is really good.

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.

Do not watch this movie if you have epilepsie. Most of the scenes are done with a very shaky camera, I think that the cameraman suffered from several epilepsie attacks during the filming but somehow the director did not want to change the crew. It was really so bad that after 30 minutes i could not watch another second. Battle is like this: shaking shaking, a guy, shaking shaking, a wall behind the guy, guess he's in a castle, shaking shaking, stuff is happening and I'm feeling sick, shaking shaking, you see some short shots of blood and limbs and you hear screams, shaking shaking, more screams and a short sense that you think you saw a guy moving around and attacking another guy, more shaking.thats where i stopped watching this movie. I don't know why people decided a shaking camera is good for any movie all it does is make me sick. If you like to be sick and may want to induce a ceisure then watch this movie.BTW no storyline just screams and shaking camera, so thats why i activated spoiler alert, because thats the whole story

Although the movie depicts a reasonable amount action and semi exciting battle scenes, it is so inaccurate that after a while I've found it hard to watch. The battle images eventually become repetitive and I would have liked to see a more accurate representation of what would happen in a siege, battle, etc...So, here are all the things that I can think of that are clearly wrong: A siege army marches up to a castle. Trebuchets just appear out of thin air an hour after. Really, it would take a few days to assemble the trebuchets. It could take up to an hour to reload a trebuchet to fire again. In the movie trebuchets fire about every 30 seconds. After what looks about 5 minutes of rapid trebuchet bombardment, the soldiers rush at the walls. Of course, what would normally happen is weeks, may be months of bombardment until at least 1 or multiple wall breaches are made. Next to the trebuchets are archers who fire arrows which somehow travel about 3-5 times the distance they would normally and hit the castle from the same distance as the trebuchets. Although about 20 archers fired the arrows about 100-200 arrows struck the castle court yard. This is not considering that normally about half the arrows would hit the wall or buildings and not do any damage. If a king would ever march with an army of just mercenaries, the mercenaries would immediately take him hostage and demand heavy ransom. Indeed, mercenaries would normally join larger armies and the king would always be surrounded by trusted guards. The "good" guys are capable of fighting 10 on 1 odds and win without even a scratch. A mercenary employed by the good guys is loose with women, yet he never rapes any. Sorry but that's just the truth, rape by soldiers, especially mercenaries was common place those days. The castle is exceptionally clean. Mind you they didn't used to have a sewer system... But then again, they haven't pooped even once in this movie, so I guess that's why the castle is clean and doesn't stink. Normally during a siege, due to overall unsanitary conditions 10-20% of the soldiers would be sick as would 20-40% of the towns folk. Not a single person is sick which is fortunate cause there there is no sewer and vomiting just wouldn't do. A few hits from hand held ram break down the gates. This is a castle with 50 foot walls that trebuchets couldn't break down but apparently the gate was made of pillows. When the garrison is told to make a shield wall, the soldiers just stand next to each other holding individual shields. No shield interlocking at all. In fact not only you can slide a sword in between the shields but a small man could probably fit through. A woman that was never trained in combat leads the shield wall while wielding a 50 pound sword, as if it was a movie prop. Ummm... may be that's why... Strangely I see no cattle at all the entire movie. What do these people eat? Historically, when preparing for a siege, they would have collected every chicken, cow, horse from miles around. The castle would have been packed. Where are the town's folk in this siege? There is about 20 soldiers, 5 nobles and may be 20 servants. A castle this size should have 300 or so people and in an event of a siege, peasants from miles around would come in which would bump the number to 1000 or more. Not a single farm is burned during this movie. There is zero pillaging. In spite of the king being "evil", his evilness is limited to yelling, stumping his feet and well he did order an opposing "good" guy chopped up. I guess that's something. Although by the standards set by the times, that was a very quick death, 5-10 minutes of chopping and that's it. Historically, the slow torture would last days and be way more elaborate. Trebuchets couldn't break the castle but towards the end the castle just falls to pieces basically on it's own. People inside the collapsing tower are unhurt by giant stones. Tons or rock just came down but the dust settles down in under a minute and a minute later, there is no dust at all. A wounded and nearly dying man predictably says "go, I'll hold them off" and proceeds to kill about 20 enemy soldiers. During the culmination fight the Templar and the Dane lock sword to axe. The Templar has a clear path to just slide his sword right into the Dane but doesn't. Instead he waits until he is seriously wounded and then kills the Dane. The moment the mercenaries defeat everyone in the castle, the French army arrives. Mind you the whole siege took 2 days. But somehow they just apparate to the middle of England Harry Potter style. The Templar, the main protagonist, at the beginning of the movie was under vows of silence and celibacy breaks both by the end of the movie which is about 2 weeks time. The ending summary states that King John died of dysentery. About time someone pooped in this movie!

This came as a big surprise. For the sake of power over a country, a Christian king, John, claiming to be backed by his religion, fights another group of Christian extremists -- the Knights Templar -- with the utmost brutality, deliberately lopping off hands and heads, performing saggital sections on innocent captives, and doing it all in front of the TV cameras. You should see the arms and legs fly.Worse yet, King John (Giamatti) burns a horde of pigs ("those least fit to eat") alive beneath Rochester castle to undermine its foundations with the excessive heat and bring down the stones. People are one thing, but those poor pigs.John, the rotter played by Claude Raines in "The Adventures of Robin Hood", has signed over some of his power to a parliament but is now reneging and wants to be an unfettered king again. The Knights Templar, who have taken vows of chastity, among other vows, disagree.There are a couple of good things about the film. One is the period evocation. It's all mud and lowering skies; none of the gay sunshine and California bunch grass of the Errol Flynn fairy tale. Another is the butchery. I didn't get the usual feeling that the blood and amputations and screaming were designed EXCLUSIVELY for the entertainment of cheering ten-year olds. When someone is hit full force with a broadsword or a battle axe, I can believe that this is what it looks like.And two good performances emerge. Derek Jacoby as the elderly and exhausted lord of the castle. And Paul Giamatti as King John. Both are excellent. Nobody else is. Nobody else is especially wanting, as far as it's possible to tell, but neither are they magnetic.The story itself, underneath all the chain mail, blood, and muck, is formulaic. A couple of noble people make a last stand and die, one by one, after savage fighting, until they're rescued by the cavalry.It's not nearly as terrible as it could have been.