Review: Ironclad

Set in the 13^th Century, Paul Giamatti play King John, yes that King John, who has just signed the Magna Carta pretty much by force, but being a prick, he changes his mind quickly. Thus England is once again under his brutal rule. The Duke of Albany (Brian Cox) takes exception to the King’s arseholishness (if that’s not a word, it is now), and with the blessing of the Archbishop (Charles Dance), he sets about recruiting a small army (seven in total) who hole up in the Alamo...er...Rochester castle as the King’s army set to attack. This army includes a Templar Knight (James Purefoy), archer Mackenzie Crook, and rowdy warrior Jason Flemyng. Derek Jacobi and Kate Mara play the Duke of Rochester and his neglected young wife, the latter of whom takes a liking to Purefoy, while the former of whom is too busy grumbling about his castle being commandeered to notice his wife might be soon commandeered as well.

 

A good try, but this 2011 flick from director/co-writer Jonathan English doesn’t quite come off, despite a good performance from Paul Giamatti as the selfish and brutal King John. English has attempted to make a Medieval version of a spaghetti western, or at the very least “The Magnificent Seven”. At one point we even get what sounds like a Gregorian chant version of an Ennio Morricone score. Unfortunately, the action, whilst extremely brutal, isn’t frequent enough, and the heroes are surprisingly boring, despite being headed by the blustery Brian Cox (the best of the lot), and featuring Jason Flemyng among them. Aside from Cox and Purefoy, none of them have any depth, and Purefoy plays a Knight Templar, who doesn’t quite make for a dashing Medieval hero. You’d think that kick-arse warrior monks would equal kick-arse entertainment, but it only comes in fits and starts. Cox does get one great line, however; ‘You’re no more King than the boil on my arse!’. It’s a shame he’s not the lead, he’s certainly more colourful than Purefoy. Charles Dance is fine as the Archbishop who gives Cox his blessing, but neither he nor the usually classy Derek Jacobi (I hear he’s a great Shakespearean actor. Just ask Frasier Crane) get much to do here.

 

The film is only two hours long, but whenever Giamatti isn’t on screen, it seems like four (Meanwhile, it appears to have about eleventy billion producers- what’s up with that?), despite not having enough character development. There seems to be way too much waiting around for the action to kick into gear, and the waiting isn’t interesting. Worse still, the camerawork occasionally herks and jerks “Saving Private Ryan”-style, so that even a guy getting his skull cut in half doesn’t have the same impact because the cameraman has Parkinson’s. It’s also unevenly lit, looking like a dull made-for-TV cheapie at times, especially early on, but really nicely lit at others, and seemingly not with any good reason. There’s some particularly nice shots of soldiers coming through the fog, which I appreciated.

 

Watchable, but more Giamatti would’ve helped, more character depth would’ve been nice too. Still, there’s some interesting things going on here from time to time, and Giamatti’s John is the very worst kind of King imaginable.

 

Rating: C+