Barely passed for me was enjoyable to watch but didnt really make me feel anything.. Still a decent medieval movie to watch. i wouldn't skip it.

The amazingly talented cast of this low-budget medieval romp is wasted on a simplistic script so poorly directed it feels like a school play. Marred by inexplicable poor camera work and editing, even outside of the disjointed action scenes, a scale that couldn't be done justice at its budget, and a completely misplaced and unnecessary romance subplot, Ironclad is only worth watching for the medieval completionist.

It isn't quite as good as the story should be because it focuses too much on the fighting. It is still really interesting.

A brash exploitation medieval B-movie (medsploitation?) starring Paul Giamatti as a frankly insane King John, and Brian Cox as the leader of a group of the Knights Templar, it sounds like it could be fun. And in fits and bursts it's just that; set amongst the settling dust of the Magna Carta signing, King John decides to renegade on the agreement and retake control of his country. To have a chance of doing this he needs to take Rochester Castle, a strategically key location to access the rest of the country. The Knights Templar are sent by Archbishop Langton, author of the Magna Carter to stop King John and hold Rochester Castle, hopefully with the eventual help of the French. What follows is essentially a siege movie, with some violent battle sequences that you'd naturally expect. What Ironclad lacks however, is a sense of substance that you may have got with someone like Ridley Scott (on Gladiator [2000] form rather than Kingdom Of Heaven [2005]) or indeed Wolfgang Peterson. Paul Giamatti's King John is a joy to watch, but more for comedic value rather than for any degree of genuine menace; falling well short of Alan Rickman's momentous Sheriff of Nottingham in 1991's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Brian Cox is everything you'd expect of him and there are some enjoyable cameos here and there. Ironclad does what it says on the tin (you kind of know where you are from the producers of 300 [2006]) but if you want something more opulent, you'd be better off going elsewhere.

It's not one of the best medieval movies, but it has its good moments, it could have been better if it had a bigger budget.

Not the greatest work of art, but good time fun medieval sword and shit,

Despite being somewhat bloated, stilted and ponderous in parts — this film also has moments of real brilliance. And what a cast! Well worth it.

Epic, epic and even more EPICNESS!

This is my kind of Medieval film, add a mix of veteran actors, a good script, and even on a low budget you end up with an excellent and entertaining movie.

Paul Giamatti and James Purefoy do the best they can with this one. There's enough action to keep you interested. However the historical accuracy is definitely not there, which isn't surprising for Hollywood. For whatever reason, this has always been one of my go-to movies for the time period in which it takes place. Then again it isn't exactly a loaded genre.

A great movie. More than just battle porn, although the marketing team didn't seem to understand that. Giamatti plays the sublimely wrathful King John, asserting the divine right of kings with ruthless violence. A believable and compelling figure, not a stock villain. Purefoy is excellent as the disillusioned Templar Thomas, who has returned from the pointless slaughter of the Crusades unsure who he is, but very sure of his sword. After John has the tongue cut out of Thomas' spiritual mentor, a pious old man attempting to make peace, it's on. Kate Mara plays the ravishing princess, withering on the vine of a sexless marriage to an old fool, who is determined to show Thomas that she is "not a sin." Overall, a compelling and historically realistic drama, with important political and spiritual undertones.

Forget accuracy. The cast outways that like Braveheart. The acting and writing is good. The camera work excellent

In 13th-century England, a small group of Knights Templar fight to defend Rochester Castle against the tyrannical King John. It has a good plot, but it is historically inaccurate in many points. Anyway it is entertaining and has great and gory battles.

Historically inaccurate, simple-minded, and unevenly paced, Ironclad is saved by its brutal action, high stakes, and surprisingly good lead performance from James Purefoy. Paul Giamatti is terrific as King John, with several hilarious moments, and Kate Mara and Brian Cox stand out from the rest of the cast.

Entertaining, if not deep. Paul Giamatti has some great scenes as John Lackland, though.

It was a breath taking experience which had me on the edge of my seat, hoping for the survival of the main characters. While I admit the romantic plot was fairly weak, Isabel could be a little creepy and Thomas's mood swings reguarding her were slightly odd, the action was thrilling and the deaths of characters left a lasting impact on me. Overall it was a great experience with some flaws (but what movie doesn't have flaws).

I enjoyed it! Good vs evil!

Another B rated movie by fans and pundits alike that does not get the credit it deserves. Many call it bland, lacks passion, and is brainless slaughter but that does it injustice. As a reenactment of a historical event an period of British history it does a decent job for the budget. We would all love to see these type of movies as A list and in the league of "Gladiator" but for what it is worth, Ironclad doesn't do so bad. it is worth the watch.

Good flick if you like that period of history. Casting Paul Giamatti as King John is a real head scratcher.

Couldn't even finish this turd of a film. Story is quite terrible - I stopped watching and decided that packing the dishwasher would be more enjoyable