From director J.J. Abrams comes the next installment in the Star Trek saga, Star Trek Into Darkness. See it at Cinemark theaters now and pre-order on Blu-ray, 3D Blu-ray, DVD, and the Exclusive Starfleet Phaser Gift Set. Shop Star Trek Into Darkness and more in the Star Trek Store. Learn more |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
None.
Editorial Reviews
A Medieval Magnificent Seven, Ironclad is a violent action thriller that tells the true story of a motley crew of tough, battle hardened warriors, who withstood several brutal and bloody months under siege, in a desperate bid to defend their country.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
30 of 33 people found the following review helpful
By MadMacs
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. <g>
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.
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. <g>
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.
55 of 66 people found the following review helpful
By Saracen
I have been waiting for this movie to be released ever since I first heard about it back in 2009. Back then it was supposed to star Megan Fox, but for one reason or another she did not end up making the movie. Also, it was originally supposed to be a theatrical release, not a direct to video release. Despite what the Editorial review says, "Ironclad" is NOT a true story. It is a fictional movie based on historical events. "Ironclad" is based upon the siege of Rochester Castle during the First Baron's War (1215-1217). The war began when King John, having recently signed the Magna Carta, reneged on his promise to abide by the provisions of the documents which would significantly limit his power, and give the nobles the right to override the King at any time using the right of Distraint, and the tenets of The Law of The Land versus the will of the King. In return for his agreement to the Magna Carta, the Baron's had renewed their oaths of fealty to the King. When King John refused to honour the document, the Barons went to war against him. In the movie, the rebels are portrayed as Knights Templar, and King John recruits Scandinavian mercenaries to fight them. This is pure fiction. King John conducted the war himself along with Hubert de Burgh, the Earl of Kent; William Marshal, the Earl of Pembroke; and loyal English knights, no Scandinavians. The rebels were English Barons led by Robert Fitzwalter with support from Prince Louis of France, who subsequently invaded England and was declared King of England by the rebels. Also, King John relied upon starvation rather than combat to force the rebels to surrender Rochester Castle after a siege from October 15, 1215 to November 30, 1215, but two months of starvation would make for a very dull movie.
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
By PJS1975
Whenever a film purports to chronicle a historical event (i.e. the First Barons' War in England, which began with the siege of Rochester Castle in the year 1215), and then spends approximately the first 40 seconds giving you the historical background before plunging the viewer pretty much straight into medieval-era dangers and derring-do.... at times like these, it is best to tell yourself, "It is what it is," and just sit back, relax, smile, and watch the blood and severed limbs fly.
Because you're not gonna get the formal, historical, Oxford lecture series retelling of events, my friends. No, not even if you necromantically raise the desiccated corpse of Alexander Scourby in your living room and command his cadaver to read aloud John Milton's `The History of Britain" throughout the entirety of "Ironclad." You're still not gonna get it...
The story: Grim, war-weary Knight Templar Sir Thomas Marshall (James Purefoy, an actor who snags the "Robert E. Howard" character roles as quickly as they're written) returns from the Crusades and joins forces with Baron Albany (Brian Cox, that incomparable paragon of stagecraft), who seeks to rebel against the despotic King John (Paul Giamatti, that incomparable paragon of shouting). Together, they take control of Rochester Castle because they know its strategic location will be a decisive factor in the coming civil war. Aided by a half dozen or so of Albany's comrades - all of whom make the "hardest of the hard" from "Braveheart" look like wimps - plus a few soldiers from the castle garrison, Sir Thomas heroically defends Rochester Castle against King John's army of barbaric Danish mercenaries. Note: Did the filmmakers want to include an exotic, Viking element in their retelling just for the fun of it? That was my first clue to throw 'historical accuracy' to the four winds for this one.
It's true that, taken as a historical drama, "Ironclad" doesn't offer much. Taken as a "European" martial arts film, however, it merits one's attention.
The bottom line: I've not seen another film in this genre (except for "Braveheart") that takes an array of Europe's deadliest medieval weapons and demonstrates to the viewers - graphically - exactly why those weapons were so effective in battle. To give one example, Purefoy's Knight Templar character fights using a two-handed longsword, and at times he grasps the blade to shift and swing the weapon, or reverses his grip entirely and attacks his foes with the hilt and weighted pommel. This is a real swordfighting technique, now almost forgotten, because nowadays everyone is accustomed to thinking of the hilt of the sword as "the place to put your hands." What this technique accomplishes is to turn a (presumably) slow, heavy longsword into a body-length bladed staff, with a heavy, battering weight at one end. And if you think that's cool, watch what the character named Becket (Jason Flemyng) does with the pole-axe/halberd he wields throughout most of the film.
Plus, there are destructive siege engines. And monstrous Viking battle-axes. And throwing knives. Clubs studded with iron rivets, anyone? Right here. Severed limb, anyone? Oh, you betcha, says Ms. Palin.
So, if you should decide to watch "Ironclad," watch it for these reasons. All of the fights look cool and feel real, and overall, the performances are generally as they should be for this type of film. Not much depth of character, in other words, but who really cares when it's mano-a-mano, and steel is crashing against sanguine steel (or thudding into flesh). Ol' Robert Ervin Howard would approve. If you truly want to experience "the real Middle Ages in Britain" then go take in a Latin High Mass at Mel Gibson's dad's church, or something, and then drink until you want to fight everyone around you. And besides, who expects bona fide historical accuracy from a hack-and-slash, cheer the heroes movie that casts Paul "We couldn't afford Gary Oldman" Giamatti in the role of England's most infamous monarch?
Because you're not gonna get the formal, historical, Oxford lecture series retelling of events, my friends. No, not even if you necromantically raise the desiccated corpse of Alexander Scourby in your living room and command his cadaver to read aloud John Milton's `The History of Britain" throughout the entirety of "Ironclad." You're still not gonna get it...
The story: Grim, war-weary Knight Templar Sir Thomas Marshall (James Purefoy, an actor who snags the "Robert E. Howard" character roles as quickly as they're written) returns from the Crusades and joins forces with Baron Albany (Brian Cox, that incomparable paragon of stagecraft), who seeks to rebel against the despotic King John (Paul Giamatti, that incomparable paragon of shouting). Together, they take control of Rochester Castle because they know its strategic location will be a decisive factor in the coming civil war. Aided by a half dozen or so of Albany's comrades - all of whom make the "hardest of the hard" from "Braveheart" look like wimps - plus a few soldiers from the castle garrison, Sir Thomas heroically defends Rochester Castle against King John's army of barbaric Danish mercenaries. Note: Did the filmmakers want to include an exotic, Viking element in their retelling just for the fun of it? That was my first clue to throw 'historical accuracy' to the four winds for this one.
It's true that, taken as a historical drama, "Ironclad" doesn't offer much. Taken as a "European" martial arts film, however, it merits one's attention.
The bottom line: I've not seen another film in this genre (except for "Braveheart") that takes an array of Europe's deadliest medieval weapons and demonstrates to the viewers - graphically - exactly why those weapons were so effective in battle. To give one example, Purefoy's Knight Templar character fights using a two-handed longsword, and at times he grasps the blade to shift and swing the weapon, or reverses his grip entirely and attacks his foes with the hilt and weighted pommel. This is a real swordfighting technique, now almost forgotten, because nowadays everyone is accustomed to thinking of the hilt of the sword as "the place to put your hands." What this technique accomplishes is to turn a (presumably) slow, heavy longsword into a body-length bladed staff, with a heavy, battering weight at one end. And if you think that's cool, watch what the character named Becket (Jason Flemyng) does with the pole-axe/halberd he wields throughout most of the film.
Plus, there are destructive siege engines. And monstrous Viking battle-axes. And throwing knives. Clubs studded with iron rivets, anyone? Right here. Severed limb, anyone? Oh, you betcha, says Ms. Palin.
So, if you should decide to watch "Ironclad," watch it for these reasons. All of the fights look cool and feel real, and overall, the performances are generally as they should be for this type of film. Not much depth of character, in other words, but who really cares when it's mano-a-mano, and steel is crashing against sanguine steel (or thudding into flesh). Ol' Robert Ervin Howard would approve. If you truly want to experience "the real Middle Ages in Britain" then go take in a Latin High Mass at Mel Gibson's dad's church, or something, and then drink until you want to fight everyone around you. And besides, who expects bona fide historical accuracy from a hack-and-slash, cheer the heroes movie that casts Paul "We couldn't afford Gary Oldman" Giamatti in the role of England's most infamous monarch?
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Worth watching and purchasing
I enjoy watching these kinds of movies for many reasons. This includes the scenery (who doesn't like castles, fortresses and citadels that look impenetrable? Read more
Published 10 days ago by Wildcard3952
5.0 out of 5 stars
History Shmistory. It's a good flick!
The Amazon description says this is a true story. Well, sort of. There is a Rochester Castle. King John did sign the Magna Carta and then kind of reneged. Read more
Published 11 days ago by NyiNya
4.0 out of 5 stars
Interesting
The premise of this movies was interesting. Everyone knows of the Magna Carta, but the story does a nice job of dealing with John's unwillingness to cede power. Good movie.
Published 1 month ago by Ed Jones
5.0 out of 5 stars
Awesome movie!
I really enjoyed this movie. While it was not totally factual, it was based on true events. A great movie for those who are interested in the medieval time period and castles. Read more
Published 1 month ago by misshalloween
2.0 out of 5 stars
Ironclad
I bought this movie not remembering that I had rented it from redbox.It was a borning movie when I rented it and when it arrived I watched about 30 min. Read more
Published 1 month ago by Mack Phillips
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Days Of Old
Love these kind of films, especially when they are done well. this film had good acting & good effects. Whether the story was true or not, who cares. It was worth the watch.
Published 2 months ago by David W. Barsness
5.0 out of 5 stars
Ironclad
It was a great DVD top quality product, shipped fast and in one piece. I loved it 5 stars. Its wa awsome, I would reccomend it to anyone who likes medeival films.
Published 2 months ago by robert hunter
5.0 out of 5 stars
Better than expected!
I saw this movie on Netflix, and didn't expect it to be great, but it surprised me by being so good I had to buy a dvd copy!
Published 2 months ago by Andrew09
5.0 out of 5 stars
WHat i wanted
Seen this movie a while back on netfix and wanted it so when i went to look for another movie i looked for this one
Published 3 months ago by kraig
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good middle ages action flick
Good acting, costumes and action. Glad I bought the movie ... one of those that I will watch multiple times.
Published 3 months ago by Sooner Man
