While not very deep, and light on character development, IRONCLAD is a well-made medieval action movie which is like BRAVEHEART crossed with THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN. The story is about the siege of Rochester Castle during the final years of King John of England's reign. A group of seven men, led by a Knight Templar (James Purefoy) go to Rochester Castle to defend it against King John who his hellbent on retaking lands that he lost after signing the Magna Carta. The reason for it being Rochester Castle is because it was strategically important for the monarchy. During the first part of the movie, the team is assembled and the premise is set up rather well with an expository introduction (there is some voice-over sprinkled throughout the film). The latter part of the movie is the siege, and this is definitely the strongest part of the movie. The battle scenes are brutally violent and bloody, as limbs and heads are hacked and slashed in a variety of ways. What's even better is that most of it was accomplished using good-ole prosthetics, as opposed to CGI. However, up to this point, we don't really know much about the characters outside of Purefoy's Thomas Marshal. During a lull in between battle sequences is when the movie starts to pay attention to the characters. Even Paul Giamatti's villainous King John is given time to shine, which makes the film more balanced. Other than Giamatti, the best performance is given by James Purefoy, who is given the best treatment in the screenplay as a conflicted Knight Templar. As a man who has seen lots of bloodshed in his time as a knight, he begins to have second thoughts about his calling and, in the process, finds love with one of the women at the castle. Normally, when you talk about romantic subplots in movies, particularly action movies, they often feel tacked on or superfluous. Not so here, as the romance is in service of the characters and isn't overplayed. Other standout elements would be the cinematography, and the way the battle sequences were shot. They really put you into the thick of battle and give a good sense of what it might have been like to fend off an enemy in a confined space. The effects work during these sequences was also outstanding. The score was also well-done, and stirring when it needed to be. Overall, this movie is pretty good and definitely worth seeing. There are some philosophical questions pondered late into it, and while nothing really deep is said, it does add a little depth to what could have been just an ordinary medieval kill-fest. Recommended, especially to people who enjoy period war movies.

It's 1215 England, incompetent ruthless tyrannical King John (Paul Giamatti) has ruled for 16 years. After 3 years of rebellion, he is forced to sign the Magna Carta by the rebels and the Knights Templar. As the rebels disperse, King John gets a new force of Danish mercenaries. He tries to retake England and take revenge. First he must capture the Norman castle at Rochester. Thomas Marshal (James Purefoy) and Baron William d'Aubigny (Brian Cox) lead a small group of Knights Templar as well as Baron Reginald de Cornhill (Derek Jacobi) who rule the castle and his men. Lady Isabel (Kate Mara) is Cornhill's wife. The small ragtag band of fighters hold off against massive odds.

There isn't much setup to start, but there is a history lesson to read through. This is basically one long siege movie. There are blood splattering action and CGI battles. It's sword swinging muddy mess. In between battles, there is some romantic developments between Kate Mara and James Purefoy. The characters aren't really that compelling. The most disappointing has to be Paul Giamatti. He needs to be more incompetent and more tyrannical. Also the romance seems out of place. However there are some good battle action and I do like the movie tackling little known history.

Director Jonathan English delivers a capture-the-castle story of medieval warfare in IRONCLAD, an under-the-radar British flick that fulfils every expectation. This small scale siege flick pays homage to THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN and doesn't offer up much that we haven't seen before, but it unveils a hard-hitting story of brutality and heroism in such a way that you'll be glued to your seat. The last similar film we had to this was Neil Marshall's Romans-vs-Picts chase movie CENTURION, but Ironclad is even better, with less shaky cameras and better effects.

Heading the cast is James Purefoy, by now an old hand in historical films 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 British character actors (Mackenzie Crook and Jason Flemyng) and some other ne'er-do-wells. Against him is vitriol-spewing King John, played by Paul Giamatti, who chews and spits to his heart's content.

The story is slim and bolstered by a slew of outstanding battle sequences which focus on the blood and grime of the era. Enemies are hacked to pieces, limbs are lopped and torture abounds in these brutal times, so don't go in expecting kid-friendly fare. The decent cast lifts the level of the script above that of the B-movie, making this a cut above the rest, and the true-life story is one that's worth telling. If only they made more films like IRONCLAD!