Review of Ironclad (2011) by Elliot N — 30 Aug 2011

There has been some debate in the history discipline about the value of novels and films to the subject. Of course novels and films should not be used for factual information, take for example Oliver Stone's 1992 film JFK; nobody can explain the full chain of events on November 22nd 1963. However what films can be used as a visual representation of what it might have been like, take Saving Private Ryan for example which gives a superb representation of the D-day landings far better than a history textbook could ever manage. Ironclad may get an F for historical accuracy but a very high B for entertainment value.

In Ironclad we travel back 796 years to the year 1215 and the reign of the tyrannical King John (played rather well by Paul Giamatti). The plot revolves around signing of the Magna Carta (which essentially reduced the Kings powers) and the Barons War that followed it. Six men (and about 20 or so other soldiers) hold up in Rochester Castle and defend it against the sieges of King John and his large Danish army. The defenders must hold out until the French arrive and provide support, however the king has the support of that very important person who lives in the Vatican called the Pope.

Clashing swords, smashing shields, severed limbs, decapitated heads, burst guts, catapults and trebuchets, we get the lot in Ironclad as it plays out more like Medieval Total War 2 battle than a movie but there is nothing like watching a bit of gore on screen to get us through the day. Gore works far better in action-adventure movies like this than it would in a horror movie. The rather violent battles are bloody (literally) good fun, it's cheesy and knowingly so, the battle sequences are brutally realistic and the gore provides so much of the movies entertainment in its moderately long two hour running time. Unlike The Eagle (which also was set in a time where nobody shot each other with shotguns) the battle sequences are fun as The Eagle lacks the gore to make their own action scenes entertaining.

The battle sequences provide the viewer with so many great and ludicrous moments (including one moment when a mans arm is chopped off, during a fight, then is beaten to death with his own arm). Ironclad is nothing more than a bunch of sieges on a castle and its all the more fun because of it as there is plenty to enjoy and plenty to laugh at as the body count rises. They called them the Dark Ages for a reason and director Jonathan English is not worried about showing how brutal we were nearly 800 years ago. The most brutal scene includes the removal of a man hands and feet as a punishment for questioning the king's authority. Ironclad really is the Medieval 300, just as violent and just as enjoyable when it really shouldn't be.

Granted there isn't much of the story and the romantic subplot between Marshall (James Purefoy) and Lady Isabel (Kate Mara, in an absolutely terrible role) is a complete waste of screen time but some of the performances are just as entertaining as the gory battle sequences. In particular, Paul Giamatti who is enthralling as King John, the worst king Britain ever had, closely followed by King James II. Paul Giamatti plays a weak and pathetic looking but brutal king excellently and it's so enjoyable every second he is on screen as he chews the scenery when he throws a quite brilliant temper tantrum. James Purefoy is silently effective in the lead role and Brain Cox (who plays the Baron Albany) is clearly enjoying himself (and so was I it has to be said). However Kate Mara is the worst performer but the role she is given is so thankless and so terrible she never stood a chance at turning a rubbish character into something interesting. It's a role that even Ingrid Bergman could not make interesting, so as a result the female characters are not given any attention. The romantic subplot, which has no romance because the two have no chemistry anyway, only ends up adding to Ironclad's two running time and perhaps is the only reason that causes Ironclad to be slightly overlong.

The script does have plenty of bad dialogue but there are also some cracking lines too including 'You are no more a king than the boil on my arse!' and also the cost of a man's freedom is cheaper than a whore. The story is indeed predictable and nothing special as the subplots are either boring or hardly developed at the all. Filmed entirely in Wales the 13th century contemporary settings are well created, the technical aspects are well executed but the writing is occasionally poor. There is nothing wrong with the odd gory, mindless action movie as long as it's entertaining and Ironclad is exactly that. Ironclad is not much more than assaults on a castle and gory battle scenes but there are plenty of them to make Ironclad an entertaining guilty pleasure.

The battle scenes are brutal and graphically realistic and Paul Giamatti is a joy to behold in the role of King John, and these two factors add up to a very enjoyable film. It's about as historically accurate as a F grade history essay but Ironclad is a bit like watching Vinne Jones singing Bad, Bad Leroy Brown I know I should not enjoy it but I did. It's a big guilty pleasure.

3/5.