Spoilers ahead... Ironclad was like eating a massive bowl of porridge, boring. Formulaic action with no real character. The weirdest thing was the Princess (or whoever she was) endlessly fawning over the templar guy and sexually harassing him throughout the film while he pulls the "God is watching" face, especially funny when she slowly and creepily shows him her Bush...Who were all the people? Nobody knows or cares. King John was just generic douche bag bad guy and the hero of the film has literally no personality whatsoever. None. Can't even remember his name and I've only just finished watching it.

As a medieval gore-fest this film has some merit. The story itself loosely hangs around a historical context of King John, Magna Carta and the siege of Rochester. Although of dubious historical accuracy, when you tell a story from several hundred years ago, it would be foolish to carp too much on accuracy which tends to be pretty subjective in the circumstances.The cast is quite strong , featuring the likes of Derek Jacobi, Charles Dance, and Brian Cox. Characterisation is basic, but the story is driven by numerous action sequences which are convincing and compelling. At two hours, the story probably over runs by about 30 minutes, but just when interest is starting to fade up pops another battle.What defines this production is its blood and gore. The commanders of Islamic State will have been furiously taking notes as tongues, feet and hands are severed and a dismembered body is catapulted towards the enemy. The rebels against King John are unconvincingly small in number straining credibility but making the storytelling a little easier.If you like bloody historical drama, illuminated by a fiendishly evil and erratic King John, you will enjoy this movie.

The actors alone bring so much gravitas to the movie, that it's not unfair to say that they elevate it completely. But the story also works, plus there is a lot of action and blood to be shed. If you like period settings, you will have quite a lot to watch here. And a lot to like obviously too.The movie is really good, but a sort of sequel kinda almost put it down. Don't watch the other movie before or after. If you must I guess after, but you won't like it. This here has a good script and good effects, with a few nice twists along the way (mostly predictable of course), that will keep you entertained.

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.