(22 May 2012)

Potent Small Scale 'Braveheart'

One of the better Medieval period-films I've seen. Accurate to the point of being disgusting - and I'm more the pleased for it. Bloody, savage and brutal. No singing, no ridiculous troupes of dancing fools, no Renaissance Faires. This is what it was like: Gray, dingy and grim for the vast majority of people.I'm always amazed at the folks who populate these reenactment camps - happily deceiving themselves by completely ignoring the truth. I want to see a Medieval Festival where urine and feces are randomly dropped onto people - to see streets of mud filled with the same. I want to know that the people there have no dental hygiene as we know it - not even a tooth brush. So how bad do you want to hug someone now? I want to smell headache-inducing amounts of perfume in an attempt to cover up rank body odor. I want to know the dry foodstuffs are infested with mites and grubs, and that the wet foods may or may not be rancid and/or infected with bacterial viruses. Clothes and bodies infested with fleas, skin covered in acne pustules, and a general brutality against the weak.That's partly why I enjoyed 'Ironclad' - it didn't paint a rosy picture. The other reason: Ever since the cancellation of my much-lamented 'Rome', I've been hoping to see James Purefoy again. The guy is serious kick-ass. If there really were a comet-striking-the-earth-event, Purefoy is the dude I'd want to be around. I honestly see him clawing his way to the top of any primitive heap. Particularly enjoyed the story, a good one for once, about the righteousness of the Knights Templar. They've taken a pretty mean beating in the media these past few years - character assassination seven-hundred years after they were betrayed and destroyed. To quote Wikipedia regarding the Chinon Parchments, "It is currently the Catholic Church position that the medieval persecution of the Knights Templar was unjust; that there was nothing inherently wrong with the Order or its Rule; and that Pope Clement was pressured into his actions by the magnitude of the public scandal and the dominating influence of King Philip IV".So 'Ironclad' gives us a look at a true Templar - a holy knight of stout spirit and strong arm; a moral warrior with the clarity that comes from purity of vision. And I'm genuinely gratified to the filmmakers for this honest perspective. And, yes, I get the irony of this story sitting dead-center in the continual revisionist histories of King John.The rest of the ragtag band of warriors reads like an all-star cast of every period film made in the last twenty-years: Brian Cox, Jayson Fleming, Mackenzie Crook, Jamie Foreman, John Pierce Jones, Derek Jacobi and the always enjoyable Charles Dance. Each were superlative in their deliveries; much appreciated and enjoyed. Now to the weaker elements.I honestly cannot see Paul Giamatti as anything other than a strong character actor - I can't - and I've really tried. I like the man! But productions like this proves, at least in my mind, that he's seriously overrated. It's great that a 'regular guy' like him gets to step up and play the big parts (President John Adams comes to mind) but he's just too dang goofy to be believable. And as sincere as his energetic performance was in 'Ironclad', he seemed diminutive in the role. I enjoy his bad guy performances so much more when they're fitted to him - not the other way around. If you get a chance to see 'Shoot 'Em Up', you'll understand what I mean. As a medieval King Of England, he's just not suited.One aspect of his performance that I found intriguing: In the film, both introduction and curtain call for his character, has John standing and staring into shallow water. I wonder why? Reflective introspection?And I still don't get how Kate Mara continually finds herself work. I have nothing against her personally, but she just doesn't connote a leading actress presence. Screened nearly a half-dozen productions with her as both lead and supporting actor - everything screams 'average'. Nothing pops, nothing sizzles. She's reminiscent of watching a kid sister in the school play.Overall, an excellent film done on a small budget. Another $20 million and we would've gotten a larger, more authentic Rochester stage, fuller armies and a bigger splash. But I'm pleased with what they were able to achieve with what they had; filmmakers maximizing their resources is always appreciated.

Tom Long (22 May 2012)

Ironclad is as weighed-down as it sounds.

Brian Orndorf (21 May 2012)

It's overlong, but Ironclad provides a righteous jolt, working as a gritty work of period recreation and as a sword-swinging marathon of squirting blood and flying severed limbs.

Henry Fitzherbert (20 May 2012)

The characters and dialogue lack the vibrancy of the action but, all in all, this is much more enjoyable than Ridley Scott's po-faced Robin Hood.

vasile palade (19 May 2012)

another so called historical movie

Well..let me be straightforward and tell it from the beginning: i likethis movie. Maybe because Scott's Robin Hood was disappointing. Maybebecause the team behind was bold enough to try making an indie movieable to play in the big league. Maybe because they had the good idea tobring several actors from the British School (both theater and movie).Maybe because they had the good idea to end the old tradition anddepict war as gruesome as it is. No guts no glory.Several damaging issues might count for the missing 3 stars in my vote(7/10) - the shaky camera - too simple screenplay - the crumblingcastle (really people...was not there any better idea to "allow" thedanish mercs entering the castle than a herd of pigs put on fire? ) -Speaking about the Danish Mercs. Why were they speaking modern Magyar?Was this movie supposed to be played only in US ? If an medieval Norsespeaking consultant might be hard to be found i would expect findingfew modern Danish speakers to make the voice overs. Should't be thatexpensive. By the way, the Magyar language is related somehow with theFinish language but no way with any Scandinavian languages (Norse,Swedish, Danish)

(18 May 2012)

Boom shika moaw moaw.....

I just finished reenacting the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor using no more than two bowls of butterscotch pudding, a hyper active Pomeranian and a garden hose. The end result was both more historically accurate and visually appealing than Ironclad. Good Lord, people! Would it have hurt that badly to read a book before making the film? The blurb on the back of the case claimed this to be the meeting of Seven Samurai and Braveheart. I will assume that the cast of each movie was on a separate train, one moving east, the other west, on a single track at maximum velocity. That would explain, at least to some extent, this train wreck disguised as a film...It had it's moments, hence the two stars. Paul Giamatti was, in a word, superb. Brian Cox was able to make the purile nonsense written for him actually sound good. That, my friend, is acting of the first order! Purefoy was as good as the medium would allow him to be and Vladimir Kulich, despite the poorness of the script, costuming, fight choreography and direction, was actually subtle and masterful. Unfortunately it wasn't enough to make the film even marginally worth watching.Where to begin? Historical accuracy? The film resembled the actual course of events in so much as there really was a place called England in which a man named John was king and in which his barons were in revolt against him over the small matter of a document called the Great Charter and, during said revolt, a castle known as Rochester was besieged. Other names used in the film were used as names at the time of this revolt as well. That's it. That is the sum of historical fact contained in the bloody film. "The British Crown now belongs to a French Prince." In 1216.... Well, the Plantagenet dynasty was, technically, French... Norman/Angevin anyway. But in no fashion whatsoever in the manner implied in this epic flop. Sigh. I could go on for hours, but I'll move on instead.Costuming: Purefoy and Giamatti looked surprisingly period. Otherwise it was a mess. Did anyone else notice that the "Danes" were all wearing the cast off red-lined, fur-trimmed, black quilted gambesons from the original Conan movies? Watch 'em side by side and see! Some years ago the BBC ran a Robin Hood series for which "Norman" helmets were manufactured that have a brass central ridge running from brow to nape to cover the seam where the two halves are joined. These unfortunate head pieces looked inaccurate and incredibly cheap back then and neither age nor familiarity (they have appeared in everything from Braveheart to The Messenger since) has made them one whit more acceptable. And these two examples are the high points of the costuming! Mara? Good lord. Her costuming was taken from the Rivendell printing of the Victoria's Secrets catalogue.... Did anyone in the costume department take a moment to look at one decent authority on period clothing and armor? One of the Osprey books illustrated by Angus McBride, for example? Nope. That would have led to a film with some color in it. We all know, don't we, that the medieval period was monochrome, right? Except for blue woad, that is. Which the Danes were noted for using. In fact it still figures prominently in all levels of Danish life... (Did my sarcasm show? Sorry.)Fight Choreography: Dreck. That's it. Just dreck. They could have had a member of ARMA (Association of Renaissance Martial Arts) in to consult, or - better still - Mile Loades, but they might have had to pay attention to him concerning the usage of weapons during the period so better not. What a sodding mess the fights were. Gratuitous blood and gore with no sense of realism or immediacy what so ever. Gods, but I am so sick of the shaky cam effect. Take the time to train your actors properly and choreograph the fights realistically and you wont have to try and cover the amateur nature of your production with "artistic" use of the camera. (Or maybe you should just limit your cameraman's caffeine intake so he isn't quite so jittery...)And now for the reason behind the title of this review: "How's your faith now, Templar?" "Why don't you come a little closer," (Zhwing) "and I'll show you!" Cue bad 70's porn soundtrack.... Freud would have a field day with that one!I wanted to like the film. I really did. There just aren't enough (any) accurate medieval films out there. When the hype started and the early releases from the production stressed the efforts at realism, I was thrilled. In the end it was a mediocre effort at best. The script was flawed, the acting uneven and the direction highly questionable. Add to that the monochrome palette and lighting and top it with a total disregard for anything even remotely approaching factual treatment, and what we have is just another cheap B grade fantasy film. Sorry, folks. Do yourself a favor and just set fire to a $10 bill. You'll get more entertainment value for your money than if you spend it on this DVD....

Ced Yuen (17 May 2012)

Mud, blood and lots of ambition

There are plenty of lower-budget independent films that have gone on tobe more critically acclaimed and more financially profitable thanbig-budget Hollywood pictures. What is rare, however, is an indie filmthat masquerades as one of these pictures. A self-labelled "all-star indie action blockbuster" and "inspired by history",'Ironclad' issuch a film, trying to redefine the boundaries of British cinema.Whether by intention or by coincidence, 'Ironclad' picks up a few yearsafter the end of Ridley Scott's 'Robin Hood'. It is England, 1215. KingJohn (Paul Giamatti) has been forced to sign the Magna Carta, whichlimits his power and ensures the freedom of men.With the help of a Danish army, the King rampages across the country toregain absolute power. Baron Albany (Brian Cox) and a band of rebelstake Rochester Castle in an attempt to stop the tyrant king. A siegetakes place, and the rebels must hold the castle until reinforcementsarrive.The film certainly ticks many of the boxes of an action blockbuster.There's a clear "big bad guy vs. underdog good guy" vibe, plenty ofaction, and some veterans among the B-list cast. The $25 millionbudget, although pocket change in Hollywood, shows how badly this indiefilm wants to be big. A big film, however, is not necessarily a goodfilm.'Ironclad' is at its strongest when it comes to the physical side ofthings. It does not shy away from gory violence. Heads, hands andfeet go flying, blood splatters all over the the camera's lens, andthere's a particularly nasty bit involving a man and a catapult. Theweapons feel like instruments of destruction rather than Medieval-chicaccessories, and often succeed in making viewers wince.The fight choreography is particularly impressive - characters looklike soldiers trying to tear each others' hearts out, as opposed toactors trying to high-five each other's swords. The action sacrificesstyle and appearance for physicality and brutality, which results in arefreshing level of authenticity.The 13th century England recreated looks good enough to fool anyone buta history buff. Giamatti and Cox play their roles with conviction andsucceed in getting the story moving. Giamatti is particularlywatchable, playing King John as an unhinged sadist.The narrative is where 'Ironclad' falters. Fully aware that the film isessentially about a group of soldiers in a building, the writers havetried to spice things up. One of the rebels (James Purefoy) happens tobe a Templar Knight. He regrets killing people for God, so he goes on adiet of silence and chastity, the latter of which is tested (of course)by the lady of the castle (Kate Mara). These are ill-advised attemptsat emotional content and only serve to distract from what should havebeen a simpler, more polished affair.Regrettably, the filmmakers decided to emulate that mostrepulsive staple of modern action blockbusters - the shaky-cam.Specifically namechecking 'Transformers 2' and the 'Bourne' sequels asinfluences (not a good sign), they decided to shake the picture tocreate "a very real sense of action". What is achieved instead is a very real sense of frustration every timethe action is made unnecessarily incoherent. Once again, the "MichaelBay Effect" has ruined a film that would have otherwise lookedexcellent, and wasted the work of an obviously talented actionchoreographer.Despite its flaws, fans of mud'n'blood, hack'n'slash mini-epics willfind plenty to like in 'Ironclad'. It is comparable to 'Robin Hood'despite costing $130 million less to make. Director Jonathan Englishwanted to create an action blockbuster. In terms of scale and ambition,he has succeeded. But blockbusters aren't perfect, and neither is this.

Sophie Ivan (16 May 2012)

Ugly, monotonous and involving a lot of waiting, no matter how many tantrums Giamatti throws or gory interludes the screenwriters sandwich in.

Cole Smithey (14 May 2012)

Character study, history lesson, and bloody war story, "Ironclad" adds up to more than the sum of its violent parts if only just barely.

micahbosarge (14 May 2012)

As Epic as the budget would allow, but great none the less

I rented this on itunes 2 weeks before the release date of the Blurayfor $9.99 and that was the best spent $10 of my life. the action isright in your face, the acting is top-notch,but it could have been morestory exspecialy the back story of Marshall played wonderfully by(James Purefoy) who should be ranked in the same bad-ass catagorie as(Russell Crowe's Maximus in Gladiator and Gerard Butler's King Leonidasin 300)but unlike those other big budget movies who had big named filmstudios financing them Ironclade had a very modest budget but directerJonathan English pushed every dollar to make this as epic and authenticas possible and he did so.For fans of epic middle age warfare movieslike (Gladiator,Breavheart,300,troy,kingdom of heaven,Spartacus,and ,robin hood)this is the film for you their is plenty of sword fightingand more important blood and guts spraying all over the screen which issorta uncommon to todays theatrical releases witch is made for a(PG-13) crowd like (2010's Robin hood)witch got a more violent unratedrelease on bluray,but Ironclade is no (PG-13) film this is agraphic,bloody,brutal, movie and it deserves the hard (R) rating inevery way,so i give a 9 out of 10

Tyrone Homes (14 May 2012)

Should historical inaccuracy ruin a movie?

Oh dear...I've watched enough films to know how this works. Most real life eventsdon't have the requisite drama within real time historic events to makea film work so there is the inevitable 'poetic licence' taken to createthat drama. I have also enjoyed films where the history has been bentand twisted almost beyond recognition (Braveheart). I've also seenothers where the same is done or worse (U-571, The Patriot, etc...) andthe results are less watchable.Ironclad unfortunately fell into the 2nd category. In fact i became soincensed by the lack of historical accuracy i was even angrier thanwhen i watched U-571 where the filmmakers changed a pivotal act in thewar Americanising it for mercenary reasons. It's probably because iremember the events quite well from school where we seemed to study theevents around signing the Magna Carta forever. It is also because thefilm itself strongly portrays itself as depicting true life events somany watching it would take the events portrayed as gospel.In fact the French didn't arrive on English shores until 6 months afterthe events portrayed, and, oh a minor detail, King John didn't die inthe retreat from Rochester. He actually went on into the North of thecountry trapping the armies of the rebel barons in London, defeatingKing Alexander II of Scotland and it was only the intervention of theFrench which turned the tide and he died of an illness on campaignagainst them.Should these changes have annoyed me? Maybe not but if the set-up forthe film hadn't made such a virtue of the events leading up to thesiege, maybe i wouldn't have been so put off. Because at the heart ofthis movie is a medieval 'magnificent 7' that had it been set in ageneric medieval kingdom with a generic medieval king i would haveenjoyed, certainly the action and battle scenes were well done even ifthe shaky cam was a little overused. The stuff away from the battle isa bit mixed as the directing is all over the place but the cast do agood job, with the exception of Paul Giamatti, who i am usually a bigfan of, but just annoyed me for his wholly negative portrayal of KingJohn.I won't be watching this again...

Kim Hagey (13 May 2012)

pretty good

I don't know what people are talking about here ...This was a great movie, lots of action, and over the top blood andgore.Sure, some of the acting was a bit off, and it was all mud and bloodbut that's what the mid-evil times was , mud and dirt and lots of crap.The lead actor was excellent for being a lost soul and the wife of thekeep keeper was beautiful and what you'd expect from being locked upalone with and old man.Over all I really liked it. If you want a bit of fun and an easy towatch movie without over analyzing it too pieces then go for it.You won't be sorry.

lewiskendell (13 May 2012)

A bloody siege.

Ironclad is a fictionalized medieval war movie set in Britain duringthe second rebellion against King John, brought about by his dismissalof the Magna Carta he was forced to sign in the first rebellion againsthim and his attempts to punish those who forced him to sign it. The movie is basically about a Templar and a small group of soldierswho are attempting to hold Rochester Castle, the key to southernEngland, against the siege of John's superior army and Danishmercenaries. Ironclad is nothing special, but it's entertaining enough.There are a few faces you'll probably recognize among the cast, likeBrian Cox, Paul Giamatti, and Kate Mara. I doubt any of the actors oractresses will be up for many awards (though Giamatti, as King John,does get a memorable scene or three), but they do good enough jobs thatI had no complaints. The look of the film is reminiscent of other recent similarly setaction movies, like Black Death and Centurion. Very bleak, grey, andviolent. Blood splashes all over the place during the frequent battlescenes, limbs are hacked off, and gaping wounds abound. This isn't amovie for the squeamish.As I mentioned before, Ironclad isn't a huge step forward for this kindof film, but it succeeds well enough at what it attempts to do for meto give it a positive review. See it, if you're interested. 

Sam Adams (12 May 2012)

Unfortunately, a narrative needs characters as well as plot, and that's where Ironclad falls off its horse.

(12 May 2012)

"Is Killing a Noble Thing?" - Too right!

This is a British made historical battle-a-thon, It is set in the aftermath of the signing of the Magna Carta by King John. He was more or less forced to sign and as such, felt somewhat aggrieved, so in the true fashion of all absolute monarchs, he sets about killing (gruesomely) every bally person responsible, that is the Barons and their `Monk Knights', the legendary Knights Templar.King John is found out by one of the returning Crusader Templars played by James Purefoy (Solomon Kane), he teams up with the Baron of Albany played by the ever good value Brian Cox. They realise that in order to stop King John they will need to hold the strategically important castle of Rochester. King John has enlisted the help of the Danes, with the promise that they will be allowed to carry on worshiping their Pagan Gods and not have the Pope stuff Christianity down their throats. I suspect a bit of gold may have been promised too. They then set about taking the castle, but Albany has rounded up a small band of killing machines that like nothing more than a big ruck. They include Mackenzie Crook making another change of direction from his more sombre roles as in `The Office'. Rochester is owned by Derek Jacobi playing Cornhill, and he is married to Kate Mara (Isabel), she is somewhat neglected in the bed chamber department and soon finds herself drawn to the mysterious and pious Templar. You just know stuff is going to happen. Meanwhile the siege begins, with trebuchets', siege towers and scaling ladders, plus loads of Viking nutters. They are ridiculously outnumbered but believe that help is on the way from France and so have to hold out.This is a brilliant film, with blood and guts from the beginning and some excellent performances most notably from Paul Giamatti who plays King John, he was so good at being evil, I found myself swearing at him at one point (very juvenile). The fight scenes are frequent and gory and everyone is covered in filth and grime all the time, the way it would have been, no Hollywood airbrushing thank gawd.There is some CGI, but it is all done very well, there is a little de rigueur examination of the ethics of faith and the Papacy, but nothing to take this off track from being a blood and gore filled action fest. At 116 minutes, you will feel it is a short film, but you will also feel satisfied, this should have got a much wider circulation and I am so glad I finally got round to seeing it - if you like historical action this is a must see for you.

(12 May 2012)

Made for TV?

Why do we have Hungarian speaking, what should be, Christian Danes (Christianized long before this event.) attacking what should be a sizable city? (Props and sets people maybe could only afford the castle.) Why do we have the stereotypic Magnificent Seven or whatever ( including the usual handsome young wannabe) being rounded up in the usual way to defend the country against ridiculous odds as usual? Why is most, and I mean most, of the movie comical slicing and dicing sword play and the adversaries seem to always come one at a time like waiting to go through a turnstile? Why do the lead actors resumes seem to be heavily loaded on TV shorts and episodes? Is that a clue? Why is Knights Templar such a must have these days? Is it because secret conspiracy groups are so entertainment profitable.

(11 May 2012)

FITS FOR A KING

This review is from: Ironclad [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) I'm a bit of a sucker for Medieval period films: always excited by the prospect of seeing something that might hew a little closer to history while exploring the origin of some of today's more persistent cultural tropes; often disappointed by the repeated turns to violence and rather cartoonish proclamations. Ironclad lands somewhere in between by managing to find a few moments which straddle these extremes.Fellini had once made a very compelling point about the way in which we would view peoples and cultures of the distant past. While discussing "Satyricon" he pointed out that such peoples and cultures would seem very alien to contemporary perception: their behavior, beliefs and motivations becoming border-line incomprehensible to us. Ironclad does not come anywhere near such a portrayal of the Medieval mind, allowing itself instead to make a rather broad number of interpretations vastly more at home in the present day than would have been likely or even possible during the period in question. But even though the film exhibits many of the usual tendencies, it avoids the pronounced sense of romanticizing either the valor or violence surrounding the aftermath of the signing of the Magna Carta and gives a greater dimension to the ideas behind the events with an unexpected and beautifully executed apologia by one of its principal characters. And that occurs in the performance Giamatti turns in as King John. In his display of profoundly brutal violence against his enemy -- here portrayed by Brian Cox -- and the breathtakingly belligerent tirade he delivers as his justification, this nearly pro-forma action flick momentarily becomes something that begins to provide us with a credible glimpse into the deep-seated societal conflicts of that time -- some still present today. As King John rails about the royalty's ideas centered on divine rights of inheritance while, in a brilliant directorial turn, seemingly standing on water, the lights begin to come on about how utterly ignorant, self-absorbed, cruel and narcissistic the god-chosen rulers of the Middle Ages could routinely be. Such rulers postponed modernity as long as possible by ignoring human rights while clinging to ideas that consistently stunted the well-being and progress of their citizens in favor of brutality, ignorance and suffering. And all in the name of their personal, greater glory. Giamatti's walk on the water makes this vile worldview palpable and terrifying in a manner that no historical text can. Had Brian Cox been provided with a counter monologue as eloquent and moving in support of the rights of man -- something more substantial than merely repeating "Magna Carta" -- as Giamatti delivered in favor of suppression, birth right and the arrogance of privilege, Ironclad would have made a profoundly long leap forward for the genre, perhaps even becoming capable of a theoretical joust with Bresson's "Lancelot du Lac".

Leofwine_draca (10 May 2012)

Bloody, brutal, brilliant

Director Jonathan English delivers a capture-the-castle story ofmedieval warfare in IRONCLAD, an under-the-radar British flick thatfulfils every expectation. This small scale siege flick pays homage toTHE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN and doesn't offer up much that we haven't seenbefore, but it unveils a hard-hitting story of brutality and heroism insuch a way that you'll be glued to your seat. The last similar film wehad to this was Neil Marshall's Romans-vs-Picts chase movie CENTURION,but Ironclad is even better, with less shaky cameras and bettereffects.Heading the cast is James Purefoy, by now an old hand in historicalfilms and having perfected his glowering look in SOLOMON KANE.Supporting him are a disparate bunch, incorporating seasoned veterans(Brian Cox, Derek Jacobi, Charles Dance), entertaining Britishcharacter actors (Mackenzie Crook and Jason Flemyng) and some otherne'er-do-wells. Against him is vitriol-spewing King John, played byPaul Giamatti, who chews and spits to his heart's content.The story is slim and bolstered by a slew of outstanding battlesequences which focus on the blood and grime of the era. Enemies arehacked to pieces, limbs are lopped and torture abounds in these brutaltimes, so don't go in expecting kid-friendly fare. The decent castlifts the level of the script above that of the B-movie, making this acut above the rest, and the true-life story is one that's worthtelling. If only they made more films like IRONCLAD!

GUENOT PHILIPPE (10 May 2012)

Why such a corny ending?

This is an authentic little masterpiece which reminds me PaulVerhoeven's FLESH AND BLOOD and also, somewhere, Franklin Schaffner'sWAR LORD, starring Charlton Heston. A medieval tale about a siegearound a castle and its keep. A real fierce, brutal, bloody andsometimes disgusting yarn that sticks you to your seat. A hard boiledstory not for the squeamish. But I don't understand what the hell doesthat f...broad do in the middle of such a story, such a wonderfulmovie. It's a man's story, not for female, not for the sissies...Andbecause of that broad, the ending is such a mess, such a disaster.I am ashamed of this for the screenwriter and the director too.Everything is spoiled with this f...ending for the sissies.And such a pain for me.If you don't see what I mean, only imagine a love story between AnneBancroft and a man in Arthur Penn's masterpiece MIRACLE WORKER...Itwould have been as appropriate as an elephant standing in a CityHospital...I hate love interests among manhood tales. There is no place for that.

(10 May 2012)

Potent Small Scale 'Braveheart'

One of the better Medieval period-films I've seen. Accurate to the point of being disgusting - and I'm more the pleased for it. Bloody, savage and brutal. No singing, no ridiculous troupes of dancing fools, no Renaissance Faires. This is what it was like: Gray, dingy and grim for the vast majority of people.I'm always amazed at the folks who populate these reenactment camps - happily deceiving themselves by completely ignoring the truth. I want to see a Medieval Festival where urine and feces are randomly dropped onto people - to see streets of mud filled with the same. I want to know that the people there have no dental hygiene as we know it - not even a tooth brush. So how bad do you want to hug someone now? I want to smell headache-inducing amounts of perfume in an attempt to cover up rank body odor. I want to know the dry foodstuffs are infested with mites and grubs, and that the wet foods may or may not be rancid and/or infected with bacterial viruses. Clothes and bodies infested with fleas, skin covered in acne pustules, and a general brutality against the weak.That's partly why I enjoyed 'Ironclad' - it didn't paint a rosy picture. The other reason: Ever since the cancellation of my much-lamented 'Rome', I've been hoping to see James Purefoy again. The guy is serious kick-ass. If there really were a comet-striking-the-earth-event, Purefoy is the dude I'd want to be around. I honestly see him clawing his way to the top of any primitive heap. Particularly enjoyed the story, a good one for once, about the righteousness of the Knights Templar. They've taken a pretty mean beating in the media these past few years - character assassination seven-hundred years after they were betrayed and destroyed. To quote Wikipedia regarding the Chinon Parchments, "It is currently the Catholic Church position that the medieval persecution of the Knights Templar was unjust; that there was nothing inherently wrong with the Order or its Rule; and that Pope Clement was pressured into his actions by the magnitude of the public scandal and the dominating influence of King Philip IV".So 'Ironclad' gives us a look at a true Templar - a holy knight of stout spirit and strong arm; a moral warrior with the clarity that comes from purity of vision. And I'm genuinely gratified to the filmmakers for this honest perspective. And, yes, I get the irony of this story sitting dead-center in the continual revisionist histories of King John.The rest of the ragtag band of warriors reads like an all-star cast of every period film made in the last twenty-years: Brian Cox, Jayson Fleming, Mackenzie Crook, Jamie Foreman, John Pierce Jones, Derek Jacobi and the always enjoyable Charles Dance. Each were superlative in their deliveries; much appreciated and enjoyed. Now to the weaker elements.I honestly cannot see Paul Giamatti as anything other than a strong character actor - I can't - and I've really tried. I like the man! But productions like this proves, at least in my mind, that he's seriously overrated. It's great that a 'regular guy' like him gets to step up and play the big parts (President John Adams comes to mind) but he's just too dang goofy to be believable. As sincere as his energetic performance was in 'Ironclad', he seemed diminutive in the role. I enjoy his bad guy performances so much more when they're fitted to him - not the other way around. If you get a chance to see 'Shoot 'Em Up', you'll understand what I mean. As a medieval King Of England, he's just not suited.One aspect to his character that I found intriguing: In the film, both introduction and curtain call for his character, has John standing and staring into shallow water. I wonder why? Reflective introspection?And I still don't get how Kate Mara continually finds herself work. I have nothing against her personally, but she just doesn't connote a leading actress presence. Screened nearly a half-dozen productions with her as both lead and supporting actor - everything screams 'average'. Nothing pops, nothing sizzles. She's reminiscent of watching a kid sister in the school play.Overall, an excellent film done on a small budget. Another $20 million and we would've gotten a larger, more authentic Rochester stage, fuller armies and a bigger splash. But I'm pleased with what they were able to achieve with what they had, filmmakers maximizing their resources is always appreciated.