Review of Ironclad (2011) by Michael V — 06 Nov 2011

This is a low budget independent movie that is cleverly disguised as a big budget movie. Very well disguised I have to add. It certainly checks off a lot of boxes that makes it fit in a big budget blockbuster.

Big bad guy vs. underdog good guy vibe, plenty of action, and some veterans among the B-list cast. The $25 million budget, although pocket change in Hollywood, shows how badly this indie film wants to be big.

A big film, however, is not necessarily a good film. Transformers anybody? 'Ironclad' is at its strongest when it comes to the physical side of things. It does not shy away from gory violence.

Heads, hands and feet go flying, blood splatters all over the camera's lens, and there's a particularly nasty bit involving a man and a catapult. The weapons feel like instruments of destruction rather than Medieval-chic accessories, and often succeed in making viewers wince.

So yeah. They went the Braveheart route. Bravo to having some balls. The fight choreography is particularly impressive. Characters look like soldiers trying to tear each others hearts out, as opposed to actors trying to high five each other's swords.

The action sacrifices style and appearance for physicality and brutality, which results in a refreshing level of authenticity. Though I have to say the camera work suffers a bit and could have been much much better to capture the intensity of the situation.

Giamatti and Cox play their roles with conviction and succeed in getting the story moving. Giamatti is particularly watchable. He chews though his lines and gives Shakespeare the middle finger doing it.

James Purefoy is excellent and proves he should be a bigger name. I always like seeing Jason Flemyng. Guy can play any role. Kate Mara is just there. The pretty girl. She could be replaced by anyone and it wouldn't have mattered.

And it pains me to say that about a redhead.