Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: ironclad

  1. #1
    romanlegion13th's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    roman province of britannia
    Posts
    454

    Default ironclad

    my first review
    whached it last night
    did search but dident find a review

    Plot
    it is set in the year of are lord 1215 Medieval England
    starts with England in civil war over King John
    the knight templars are brought in and
    he is defeated and sings a treaty to uphold the rights of all free men
    and to give the King less power
    but John leaves and come back with viking mercenaries
    and wants to take power back

    Final Thoughts
    It is a really good movie
    very gory as medieval combat is
    the main story is about 20 men holding a castle (wont say which one) against 1000 men
    it has knights templars and skilled warriors in the 20
    if you like medieval films (i love them one of my favorite periods in history) you should watch this film




    i know its short but just wanted to let people know

  2. #2
    Akrotatos's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,955

    Default Re: ironclad

    I hated it. It was too long, ahistorical and nothing made sense. Why would the Barons not have enough men to fight John? They had defeated him previously. Why was that snall castle so important.
    I can't believe there was no other crossing available. Why would the Pope get involved? Why would the Pope use Danish pagan mercenaries (I think Denmark was christianised as well in the time period). Why would a pagan Dane be named Tiberius? How on earth could 20 men hold more than a day? Simply attacking all day and tiring them out should be sufficient. But no, instead, the built catapults, siege towers, mines and also tried to starve them out. It was as if someboy read the wiki on sieges and decided to use everything.

    Why would the Templar refuse to eat his horse? And why should anybody listen to him when they were eating insects? There are hundreds of these questions.

    All in all, an irritating and boring movie, not even the fight scenes could salvage it, or even the young noble lady that got wet every time she laid eyes upon the Templar....

    Personal opinion but I was surprised that somebody would like it so much that he would make a thread about it.
    Gems of TWC:

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    News flash but groups like al-Qaeda or Taliban are not Islamist.

  3. #3
    Inarus's Avatar In Laziness We Trust
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Posts
    6,483

    Default Re: ironclad

    A brilliant film, spectacular battle sequences. It was based on the siege of Rochester though is not entirely accurate.

    It is a film for its fight sequences which are the most accurate I have ever seen. Forget 300-style spurts of arty blood, if a great sword swings down on someone, it keeps on swinging, if an axe hits a skull, it cleaves in two.

    If you want a taste of real battle violence this film is for you.

    Akrotatos, I wonder how much attention you paid to this film because most of the reasons for your questions were explained. Barons lacked the men because they had all settled down, England never had a professional army in this period, it was mercenaries or levies raised by individual barons. The "small" Castle was Rochester, situated on the Medway, a rallying point for Kent. The film did downside it a little, the cast too, I think they must have quartered the numbers on both sides of the armies.

    You question its accuracy?

    Here you go, the order of events may have been wrong, but the siege techniques and John's violence certainly wasn't. Hell even this quote was echoed in the film:

    Quote Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_Castle
    Five siege engines were then erected and work carried out to undermine the curtain wall. By one of these means the king's forces entered and held the bailey in early November, and began attempting the same tactics against the keep, including undermining the south-east tower. The mine-roof was supported by wooden props, which were then set alight using pig-fat, on 25 November 1215 John had sent a writ to the justiciars saying "Send to us with all speed by day and night, forty of the fattest pigs of the sort least good for eating so that we may bring fire beneath the castle",[2] causing the south-east tower of the keep to collapse. The rebels withdrew behind the keep's cross-wall but still managed to hold out. A few were allowed to leave the castle but on John's orders had their hands and feet lopped off as an example.
    Why would a Templar eat his horse? That was explained in the film, and these people are devout. It's very hard to comprehend the mindsets of people living so long ago because of the atheistic society that dominates most of the modern world.

    TL;DNR: Ironclad is a well acted, well written film, working closely with - and yet manipulating - the true events. It was downsized due to a low budget yet it thrives nonetheless. If you think the questions above are well said, watch the film and most of them will be answered.

    Ironclad is your sort of film if you like a great cast, realistic battle sequences and demonstration of siege techniques.

    It isn't your sort of film if you don't like violence (it's a battle film after all) or if you can't handle the fact that it has a few inaccuracies.

    It's still more accurate than 99% of Hollywood historical films though the end is typical of a film.

    P.S. Buy it on blu-ray, it just makes it 10 times more awesome.
    Last edited by Inarus; August 26, 2011 at 08:17 AM.




  4. #4
    cpdwane's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cornwall, England
    Posts
    2,177

    Default Re: ironclad

    This film sounds right up my street, I've been waiting to see it for a while now.

    __________"Ancient History is my Achilles' Heel"___________

  5. #5
    René Artois's Avatar Dux Limitis
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    18,851

    Default Re: ironclad

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrotatos View Post
    I hated it. It was too long, ahistorical and nothing made sense. Why would the Barons not have enough men to fight John? They had defeated him previously. Why was that snall castle so important.
    I can't believe there was no other crossing available. Why would the Pope get involved? Why would the Pope use Danish pagan mercenaries (I think Denmark was christianised as well in the time period). Why would a pagan Dane be named Tiberius? How on earth could 20 men hold more than a day? Simply attacking all day and tiring them out should be sufficient. But no, instead, the built catapults, siege towers, mines and also tried to starve them out. It was as if someboy read the wiki on sieges and decided to use everything.

    Why would the Templar refuse to eat his horse? And why should anybody listen to him when they were eating insects? There are hundreds of these questions.

    All in all, an irritating and boring movie, not even the fight scenes could salvage it, or even the young noble lady that got wet every time she laid eyes upon the Templar....

    Personal opinion but I was surprised that somebody would like it so much that he would make a thread about it.
    Sure it's not very historically accurate but it's a great film - good acting, interesting plot and clever fighting sequences.

    In answer to your 'why didn't they' questions - because if they had the film would have been 20 minutes long and boring.
    Bitter is the wind tonight,
    it stirs up the white-waved sea.
    I do not fear the coursing of the Irish sea
    by the fierce warriors of Lothlind.

  6. #6

    Default Re: ironclad

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrotatos View Post
    I hated it. It was too long, ahistorical and nothing made sense. Why would the Barons not have enough men to fight John? They had defeated him previously. Why was that snall castle so important.
    I can't believe there was no other crossing available. Why would the Pope get involved? Why would the Pope use Danish pagan mercenaries (I think Denmark was christianised as well in the time period). Why would a pagan Dane be named Tiberius? How on earth could 20 men hold more than a day? Simply attacking all day and tiring them out should be sufficient. But no, instead, the built catapults, siege towers, mines and also tried to starve them out. It was as if someboy read the wiki on sieges and decided to use everything.

    Why would the Templar refuse to eat his horse? And why should anybody listen to him when they were eating insects? There are hundreds of these questions.

    All in all, an irritating and boring movie, not even the fight scenes could salvage it, or even the young noble lady that got wet every time she laid eyes upon the Templar....

    Personal opinion but I was surprised that somebody would like it so much that he would make a thread about it.

    I agree with every single word, and you made me laugh a lot, why wouldn't the Templar eat his horse??? hahahaha

    But I fancied the film anyhow, I just expected to see more Templars than a single fool and 2 bloody under sixes.

  7. #7
    Akrotatos's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,955

    Default Re: ironclad

    LOl thread encromancy and I hadn't seen the responses to my post.

    Akrotatos, I wonder how much attention you paid to this film because most of the reasons for your questions were explained. Barons lacked the men because they had all settled down, England never had a professional army in this period, it was mercenaries or levies raised by individual barons. The "small" Castle was Rochester, situated on the Medway, a rallying point for Kent. The film did downside it a little, the cast too, I think they must have quartered the numbers on both sides of the armies.
    The reasons are ridiculous. Seriously, all the wealthiest Barons couldn't gather more than 20 men because they "had settled down". Where were the levies? Why weren't mercenaries available? Why a pagan Dane was named Tiberius?

    Why would a Templar eat his horse? That was explained in the film, and these people are devout. It's very hard to comprehend the mindsets of people living so long ago because of the atheistic society that dominates most of the modern world.
    People at that time took great care of their warhorses because they were freaking expensive to breed and train. In a siege, horses were the first to be eaten, followed by cats, dogs, rats and boots. Devoutness doesn't factor to it.
    Gems of TWC:

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    News flash but groups like al-Qaeda or Taliban are not Islamist.

  8. #8
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: ironclad

    Historically, Rochester Castle was successfully seized by John after a brutal siege.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  9. #9
    Hresvelgr's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    1,596

    Default Re: ironclad

    Many of the events depicted in the siege are historical though, however the movie changes many details, such as significantly downsizing the number of defenders. Historically there were about a hundred knights supported by crossbowmen and sergeants defending the castle, however they were significantly outnumbered. The reason John was so adamant on taking the castle was because it blocked the main road to London, this was mentioned in the movie I believe. And John really did get a bunch of siege machines to attempt to take it and ended up having to mine the walls. Once the outer walls were taken the defenders went to the keep and John had pigs burned so as to set fire to the tunnel undermining the keep. And yet the castle was so well built that it did not fall completely over and the parts of the keep still standing formed a good enough defense to let the defenders remaining keep John's army at bay for days. In the end John did win, but only by negotiating with the defenders and all but one were spared execution and the rebellion was victorious soon afterwards. I will agree though that the whole pagan Danes thing was pretty stupid. Not just the ahistorical aspect, but the fact that it served no purpose. There are much better ways of making henchman sympathetic than by making up a badly put together subplot which has nothing to do with history and makes no sense at all.
    I'm not crazy, I'm the only one who's not crazy!


  10. #10
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: ironclad

    The "mercenaries" were many English lords on the Welsh border actually. Furthermore London at this time was in rebel barons' hand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  11. #11

    Default Re: ironclad

    Not totally historically accurate I agree (what film is)? However very good fight scenes and a well made film with good acting.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •