(2011)

Critic Reviews

42

Metascore

Based on 14 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com
75
As a critic who complains about painless and brainless action movies, I hoist a glass of mead to the men and maidens of Ironclad.
70
Casting is almost uniformly first rate with Cox, Purefoy and the always brilliant Giamatti providing noteworthy standouts.
63
A long way from his TV portrayal of John Adams, Giamatti seems to be having an especially good time as a splenetic King John, who would not be out of place in a Monty Python movie.
60
Like all sieges, this offers moments of choppy terror and excitement followed by dull sit-it-out-and-starve spots. Straddled between uproarious schoolboy tosh and serious historical movie, this still offers enough dismemberments, royal tantrums and portcullis-rammings to make for a lively Saturday night out.
50
The core fan base of this English sword battle drama will pay for the boundary-pushing blood and gore. Why bore them with things like plot and context and production values?
50
While Ironclad captures the casual cruelty and flesh-and-bone violence of the 13th century, it fails to do the same in the more intimate material set in the downtime between assaults.
40
Though the hambone acting quotient is high (and not necessarily unenjoyable), the loud, closely photographed limb-hacking becomes as monotonous as the movie's unrelentingly gray palette.
38
By making John such an unrepentant freedom-opposing monster, Ironclad denies itself any moral thorniness.
38
As history it's bunk; as inappropriate historical fiction, it's awfully close to comedy.
30
A gore fest aimed at indiscriminate action fans. Those interested in learning more about goings on in medieval history will probably find the splatter tedious and off-putting.
20
This bloody, messy action film devolves into a plain ol' bloody mess.

More Critic Reviews

See all external reviews for Ironclad (2011) »

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Reviews | User Ratings | External Reviews | Message Board