Ironclad Review

For all those who were left deeply unsatisfied by last year’s Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott version of Robin Hood – and I’m guessing that that might mean a lot of people –Ironclad goes some way to make up that film’s stultifying dullness and inaction.

Set in the thirteenth century, Ironclad, directed by Jonathan English, sees King John (Paul Giamatti) reneging on the agreement he signed in the Magna Carta and attempting to retake his castles with the help of some fiendish Danes. Marshall (James Purefoy), a Templar knight, learns of his plan and, with the help of Baron Albany (Brian Cox) and his handful of mercenaries (including Jason Flemyng and Mackenzie Crook), fortify themselves in Reginald de Cornhill (Derek Jacobi) and Lady Isabel (Kate Mara, last seen in 127 Hours, rounding off a strong cast)’s Rochester Castle in an attempt to hold John off until French reinforcements arrive. The resulting siege lasts for many months and sees James Purefoy’s Templar tested to the limits of physical and, due to Lady Isabel’s affections for him, mental endurance.

Ironclad is pretty enjoyable fare that will tick numerous boxes for all fans of medieval action. Big battles? Check. Busty wenches? Check. A man wielding a sword the size of child? Check. In spite of the reasonably serious take on the historical context, there is a pleasing bonhomie and something almost approaching lightness of tone in the film. There’s an amusing ‘getting the band back together’ feel to the film’s beginning in which the mercenaries are re-recruited and the friendships and rivalries between the characters felt believable. Paul Giamatti is also enjoyable as King John and is almost certainly channelling a small amount of Alan Rickman’s Sheriff of Nottingham fromRobin Hood: Prince of Thieves in his slightly mad portrayal.

The film’s strongest asset, however, is in its realistic depiction of violence. The battles are vicious – at one point, a poor sod is cut clean in half diagonally from shoulder to hip – and really make you glad you weren’t around in the middle ages and forced to fight in them. Too often in these sorts of films are fights almost totally bloodless. In Ironclad, the tomato ketchup is thrown around with near reckless abandon, which is surely an accurate representation of what these battles were like. I also have to commend the use of location. The film was shot at an actual castle in Wales, which again serves to heighten the realism. There’s also a segment in which the castle is attacked from beneath with the creative use of some pigs, which was something I hadn’t seen before and was stunned to discover actually happened in the real life event that the film portrays. There are also lots of small instances of detail – such as the Bayeux Tapestry style rendering of Giamatti in the prologue – that are pleasing to see included.

The film does make a few missteps however. Firstly, it does get rather dull in several instances where not a lot happens – but then that’s also probably an accurate depiction of being under siege. More annoying was the ‘romance’ between Marshall and Isabel, which was spectacularly ill-judged, felt forced and was completely unconvincing. There’s also the feeling – pig attack aside – that most of what you see here has been done before. And despite the good-humour of its protagonists, Ironclad also seems to promise more fun than it actually delivers in the end, which was a little disappointing given how much the cast seemed to enjoy filming it when they were promoting it at Movie Con.

Nevertheless, the film was still pretty good and is likely to please fans of the genre. A solid and entertaining depiction of a medieval melee.