Ironclad
I'm a sucker for movies about medieval England, and Ironclad is better than most. Directed by Jonathan English, it tells the story of what happened after the petulant King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta. According to the film, he set about with an army of Danish mercenaries and tried to execute all of the barons who were behind the rebellion.
One such baron, an unrepentant Albany (Brian Cox), sets off to Rochester castle with a small group of warriors. Apparently this castle is the key to the entire south of England. The local baron (Derek Jacobi) lets him in, but soon regrets it. Not only does John's army surround the castle and lay siege to it, but his much younger wife (Kate Mara) has eyes for the hunky Knight Templar (James Purefoy).
What makes this movie successful is that it doesn't resort to anachronistic silliness like most do. I have no idea if the history is accurate, but the film feels authentic. Checking Wikipedia I see that trebuchets were used in that period, and the film does not stint in letting us see the damage a battle axe can wield.
The performances are okay--Paul Giamatti is a good choice for John, as that king has never had good press, and Giamatti makes a natural villain. Purefoy plays a grim man very grimly, while Cox is a little more animated. I spent the whole movie trying to figure out which young British actress was playing Jacobi's wife, only it turned out to be an American.
This film fits in nicely with those others of the period--it's no Lion in Winter, which shows John as a young man, but it will do.
One such baron, an unrepentant Albany (Brian Cox), sets off to Rochester castle with a small group of warriors. Apparently this castle is the key to the entire south of England. The local baron (Derek Jacobi) lets him in, but soon regrets it. Not only does John's army surround the castle and lay siege to it, but his much younger wife (Kate Mara) has eyes for the hunky Knight Templar (James Purefoy).
What makes this movie successful is that it doesn't resort to anachronistic silliness like most do. I have no idea if the history is accurate, but the film feels authentic. Checking Wikipedia I see that trebuchets were used in that period, and the film does not stint in letting us see the damage a battle axe can wield.
The performances are okay--Paul Giamatti is a good choice for John, as that king has never had good press, and Giamatti makes a natural villain. Purefoy plays a grim man very grimly, while Cox is a little more animated. I spent the whole movie trying to figure out which young British actress was playing Jacobi's wife, only it turned out to be an American.
This film fits in nicely with those others of the period--it's no Lion in Winter, which shows John as a young man, but it will do.
Comments
Post a Comment