web
counter
 

Ironclad Review: Metal Up Your Ass

By TK | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (15)



Ironclad.jpg

Ironclad is an amazing movie. The film is loosely based on some of the most significant events in human history — the signing of the Magna Carta and the subsequent Baron’s War against England’s King John. It focuses its attention on the King’s siege against Rochester, as it is defended by a handful of knights and soldiers in the face of overwhelming odds. It features a spectacular cast: Paul Giamatti, Derek Jacobi, Brian Cox, Charles Dance, and Jason Flemyng. It has some gripping, brutal action sequences, and the scenes of King John’s army laying siege are quite remarkable, given the film’s budgetary constraints.

But none of that is what makes Ironclad so amazing. What makes it so amazing is that it has all of those ingredients, and yet it is unquestionably a terrible fucking movie. It is an astonishing stumble… a reeling, unfettered goddamn collapse of epic proportions, and its film makers — writer/director Jonathan English (whose previous credits include Syfy’s Minotaur) and co-writer Erick Kastel (previous screenwriting credits include… um… literally nothing) — deserve some sort of formal recognition for taking a story and a cast with such promise and potential and turning it into an absolute trainwreck of a film.

It starts, of course, with the story. Ignoring the fact that it’s fraught with historical inaccuracy (oh, boy, is it ever — if you have even an iota of knowledge of English history, get ready to lose your mind), the story is rife with painful cliche and authorial laziness. It begins with King John (Paul Giamatti, who somehow manages to overact and be the best part of the film) being forced into signing the Magna Carta, and then promptly throwing a royal hissy fit and rampaging across England seeking revenge against coercers. He’s opposed by Duke Albany (Brian Cox), who goes all Seven Samurai and gathers together — wait for it — an unlikely group of heroes who learn to work together and make a last stand against an army that clearly overmatches them. Yet with a little ingenuity and luck, and the help of their noble hero, the Templar warrior Marshal (James Purefoy), well, guess how it ends. No, really, guess.

The problem, beyond the drab, uninventive Kurosawa ripoff of a plotline, is that it gives absolutely no information, background or history to any of the players. There’s 30 seconds of exposition — just enough to give them each some sort of qualifying trait so you can recognize them under all of the dirt and blood. There’s the aforementioned noble hero, the whoremonger, the drunk, the troublemaker, the rookie, the gruff leader, et cetera, et goddamn cetera. Those traits don’t even matter, since each of them (other than Cox and Purefoy) only have about six seconds of dialogue each. The cause of the heroes isn’t exactly bolstered by the presence of the Lady of Rochester, Isabel, played with vacant-eyed, mouth-breathing incompetence by Kate Mara. Oh, Kate Mara — so pretty! So wooden! So dull! Yet she’s somehow asked to carry the part of the love interest, leading to painfully awkward scenes with Purefoy’s Marshal that are so un-romantic, you’d swear you were watching two blind, dirty, braindead donkeys stagger into each other.

On the other side of the siege is Giamatti as the sneering, domineering, arrogant King John and his army of Danish mercenaries. Danish mercenaries who, just in case you’re wondering, speak Hungarian to each other. Hand to God. Apparently, they’re Danish by way of Budapest. John, his adorable pageboy haircut, and his Hundanisharian lieutenant, the hulking, brutish Tiberius (Vladimir Kulich, who appears to be channeling Stellan Skarsgard’s grunting, lip-curling performance from King Arthur) are some of the most inept battle planners of all time, leading to their army being routinely slaughtered by six goddamn knights, one archer, and a bunch of bakers and shoemakers sitting on top of a wall with buckets of rocks. Fortunately, buckets of rocks and pails of tar can only hold them back for so long, something we should be thankful for since it’s only once they breach the castle that the film gets remotely interesting.

In fairness, Giamatti is easily the best part of the film, even though it’s some sort of overacting competition between him and Cox. But both of them are thoroughly enjoyable to watch, particularly Giamatti’s ten-minute screaming rant towards the film’s end, delivered while furiously dismembering enemy soldiers. It’s quite the sight to behold. The rest of the cast doesn’t acquit themselves quite so well, speaking breathtakingly derivative, banal and cliched dialogue as if they were heavily sedated and then shoved in front of a camera. Which, in the face of such an imposing collection of talents, is the only excuse I’m willing to accept.

What makes the bland performances so shocking is how they contrast against the absolutely balls-out action scenes. They’re a bit over-edited, but overall English is a sure hand when it comes to directing the bloody melees that pepper the film. The fights are nasty and vicious and sometimes almost disturbing in their dedication to gory accuracy. The sound effects are equally impressive, with each limb-severing “thwack!” reverberating through your eardrums. The costume design is impressively detailed, and the attention to details in set design was equally notable.

But the film is just bloody boring. Every single second in between the action scenes felt like a miserable eternity filled with dialogue written by romance novelists who had lost their will to live. It was an absolutely interminable two hours, that was nowhere near salvaged by the action choreography. It’s an utter mystery how they managed to wrangle a cast this talented and then completely neglect them (let’s not even talk about the excellent Jason Flemyng, who has roughly six lines). Ironclad is a monument to mediocrity, a slow, plodding, stupid, soulless, excruciatingly poorly written waste of talent, time and resources. Other than some exciting fight scenes and Giamatti’s sneering ball of bombastic braggadocio, the only thing notable about Ironclad is how completely, spectacularly forgettable it is. In three months, it’ll be as if it never existed, and I’m guessing the actors are all eagerly waiting for that day.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The Sooner You Accept Adele As Your Overlord and Mistress, The Easier Things Will Be For You | Life in a Day Review: Reducing Life to Its Banal Essence One Video Camera at a Time









Comments

Sorry for going off topic but Giamatti looks like angry bunny in that header photo:

http://s297.photobucket.com/albums/mm212/hungorian/Random/?action=view¤t=angry1.jpg

Posted by: snapnhiss at August 29, 2011 2:18 PM

...with big, nasty, pointy teeth! *Uses hand to demonstrate.*

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at August 29, 2011 2:52 PM

y'know it looked like a SyFy production to me and I guess I was close.
I saw the trailer for this awhile back and how could anyone think it could even be mediocre? The cast is a bunch of character actors who were apparently signed at random and a bunch of never was and has beens who work cheap. Giamatti doing ANYTHING physical seems ridiculous to me.
The thing looked like a mess from the beginning.

Posted by: logan at August 29, 2011 3:20 PM

It was terrible.

Posted by: ChickaBoom! at August 29, 2011 3:45 PM

Just the sight of Giamatti in period costume made me assume this was a comedy. A comedy of errors maybe.

Sorry. Moving on.

So it's not even fun bad/bad fun? Then they deserve the bunny's wrath. Tim will be so pleased.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at August 29, 2011 4:32 PM

Yeah, the header picture/Paul Giamatti made me think it was some Your Highness style shenanigans, or a spoof of some kind.

Sounds like it is - unintentionally.

Posted by: MM at August 29, 2011 4:56 PM

Wow. That was such an intense time in English history, with so much excitement, betrayal and general drama to choose from, and they missed it all? That's sort of impressive, in a really sad way.

Posted by: Reba at August 29, 2011 5:06 PM

Well, FUCK. I love me some Giamatti & Brian Cox scenery chews, but apparently we should just wait for the YouTube edit.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at August 29, 2011 5:40 PM

OH, TK....
Thank you for reminding me why I adore you (and Pajiba in general). I'm glad they made this terrible, terrible movie so I could enjoy this wonderful, wonderful review.

Posted by: Tira at August 29, 2011 7:24 PM

I enjoyed this review as well, but as soon as i finish typing this, I am adding this to my Netflix queue.

Posted by: browngoat at August 29, 2011 9:36 PM

All hail our King and Savior, TK.

Posted by: duckandcover at August 29, 2011 11:06 PM

It's worth renting for the action sequences alone, far less sanitised than most hack 'n slash movies.

Posted by: Squirrel at August 30, 2011 11:15 AM

Well darn. I was sort of vaguely waiting for this to come out on Redbox and now I'm afraid to watch it. Is it really so anachronistic? I was expecting a bit better since their budget sort of made it seem like the history would be about the only thing they could be trusted with (it being at least freely available). I was already planning on ignoring Kate Mara's parts, obviously. Sadly, I know entirely too much about medieval English history to stake my sanity if it's that bad. What a disappointment.

Posted by: Kim at August 30, 2011 6:19 PM

I didn't think this was so bad, and thought the fighting was great. Watch The Musketeer to see a great period action flim romance. I don't see a review of it here. Amazing special fight effects.

Posted by: rafael bolero at August 31, 2011 2:40 PM

How did you know the king's men were speaking Hungarian? I bet the movie was make in Hungary.

Actually everybody should have been speaking Norman French. English was not yet born from the mating of Norman French and Anglo-Saxon speech.

Posted by: Chuck Vekert at September 3, 2011 11:40 AM