Rainey Dawn A History film is a film with people that really lived, places that did (and might still) exist & events that really happened -- BUT maybe fictionalized for various reasons. With that said, "Ironclad" is not 100% accurate historically but it's a good movie nonetheless. The battles of the Knights Templar were bloody like any other war - so I expected the blood but I never expected to like the film this well. The film is gritty, dirty, bloody but with a good story (again, it's not perfectly accurate), great casting, and the the rest of the stuff (like cinematography, costuming, set designs, directing, etc). Overall, it was worth the 2 hours it takes to watch the film. Yes I wish the film was 100% accurate - a history lesson if you will - but I enjoyed the movie as it is. Yes I wish the film was accurate but I watch "history" films just like any other work of cinema - I ask myself "Did I enjoy the film?" and the answer is yes to "Ironclad".8.5/10

Time Saver Even though historically inaccurate, I found this movie appealing, due to its gloomy atmosphere, raw characters and great fighting performances.Filmed with low budget, the story focuses on a specific event, therein lacking certain depth and dynamics. Although poorly developed, the characters are well chosen and give the impression that they actually belong to that time and place. I especially liked how James Purefoy expressed the dark of his character.The fighting scenes are realistic, brutal and very convincing, and it is a real drawback that the chaotic camera movement spoiled that which is best in this movie.If you like raw medieval action, violence and gore, then this is the movie for you.

domedi 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

Robert J. Maxwell 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.