“Ironclad”
is a medieval action/adventure film set in England in the 13th
Century. It was directed by Jonathan
English and shot in Wales. It cost only
$25 million. Some of the cost went to a
replica of Rochester Castle.
A narrator tells us that in 1215, after a three year
civil war, King John was forced by the barons to sign the Magna Carta. John is described as being famous for losing
wars, levying punitive taxes, and sleeping with the wives of barons. The Knights Templar were important in the
defeat of John. “What is not remembered
is what John did next.” Intriguing
because most histories of the Magna Carta end with the supposed fait
accompli. And England lived happily ever
after. It turns out, not so much so.
King
John (Paul Giamatti) has hired mercenary Danes to get revenge against the rebel
barons. One of them is the Baron
Darnay. When John and his force attack
the Darnay Castle. Three Knights Templar
valiantly defend the castle in a graphic and frenetic melee. It turns out that Knights Templar are real
badasses. One of them, James Marshall
(James Purefoy) escapes and Archbishop Langton (Charles Dance) convinces him to
join the Baron D’Aubigny (Brian Cox) to help stop John. The plan is to halt his majesty at Rochester
Castle. They assemble the usual motley
crew: D’Aubigny’s gung-ho squire, an
archer, a sell sword who does not like Marshall, a brute, and a slob. Rochester’s Baron Cornhill (Derek Jacobi) is
not too thrilled, but he knows there is no movie without the siege. Plus, he knows that he is no match for James
Purefoy when it comes to his wife Isabel (Kate Mara). He has good reason to be concerned. Queue the Danes arriving from the mist. After D’Aubigny taunts John by telling him
that he is “no more a king than the boil on my ass”, it’s game on. The Danes have trebuchets, but decide to
escalade instead. Some manage to get in
so we can have gratuitous violence. The
wounds are extremely graphic. One guy
kills another with a severed arm. I
don’t mean that the loser has a severed arm, I mean the victor uses a severed
arm to bash him to death. It’s that kind
of movie. Before the siege is over, we
get fire balls, siege towers, mining, and lot of dismemberments. And John goes from most evil king to most
evil human being because of this movie.
“Ironclad” is a nice time-waster. Well, if you like
seeing men killed by arms of other men.
It does fit the modern trend of extreme violence. It also fits the recent trend of escalating
the violence so it does not seem redundant.
That means if you find the first skirmish stomach-turning, don’t stick
around for the big finish. In this case
the violence will give you a primer on siege warfare tactics and weapons in
medieval times. The castle is authentic
and realistically grimy. The same can
not be said for the characters. After a
siege of several months, the beards have not grown and the shampoo is holding
up real well. The cast is a mix of the
well-known and the little-known. Purefoy
is excellent, as usual. Paul Giamatti
chews the scenery gustily. He put a lot
of effort into his seven days of work.
The characters are typical stereotypes from any small unit, who will
survive? movie. No need for character
development. Dysfunction is set up, but
not pursued. The romance is very
predictable. As far as historical
accuracy, it does bring to light an obscure incident in British History. Just please read up on it after watching the
movie. It is not a documentary. For instance, the ending is the opposite of
the actual conclusion. Oh well,
entertainment is everything, right?
GRADE
= C
HISTORICAL ACCURACY: The
movie is based on a siege that occurred during the First Baron’s War. This war was a result of King John reneging
on the Magna Carta. The barons, who had
forced him to sign the Great Charter in 1215, encouraged Prince Louis of
Francis (the heir apparent to Philip II) to invade England to support
them. Louis marched into London without
a fight and then proceeded to lay siege to Dover. The siege was unsuccessful and Louis fell
back to London. John seized the moment
and marched on London. Rochester Castle
blocked his path. The barons had sent a
force under William D’Aubigny and constable Reginald de Cornhill opened the
castle to him. John arrived soon after
with a force of Flemish, Provencals, and Aquitainians. No Danes.
By the way, the movie is inaccurate in portraying the Danes as pagans,
they were actually Christians. And they
would not have painted themselves blue, that was a Pict/Scot thing. The force defending the castle was
substantially larger than in the movie.
Probably 95-110 knights and crossbowmen.
When John arrived he sacked the nearby cathedral and city. He then assaulted the castle using five siege
machines and undermining. His men
breached the walls and captured the bailey easily. The defenders retreated to the keep which was
a tougher nut to crack. However, a mine
was dug under the wall and a large number of pig carcasses facilitated a fire
that caused the wall to cave in. Some
stalwarts still held out. John allowed
some to come out and then proceeded to have their hands and feet cut off to
intimidate the remainder. They
eventually surrendered due to starvation.
Louis did not send a relief force because John had destroyed the bridge
over the Medway River. John wanted to
hang the garrison, but one of his men talked him out of it.
No ditch around the castle?
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw the title I thought you might be reviewing the 1991 made-for-television movie "Ironclads," portraying the naval battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack. That was a great movie for giving the viewer an idea of how that battle might have looked.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds more like, as you say, an adventure movie set in a historical time but not strictly wedded to actual events. I probably won't go out of my way to look for it.