Author Topic: Ironclad (Read 3130 times)

Faust23 · « **on:** July 04, 2012, 02:08:28 AM »

Just watched Ironclad. Badass.

OSHIROmodels · « **Reply #1 on:** July 04, 2012, 08:01:21 AM »

Bit of a hit and miss for me

James Purefoy is good as always and the American chap who played King John was very good (can't remember his name

and even though he was American playing an English king).

But parts of it seemed unfinished or incomplete, don't know why

cheers

James

Malamute · « **Reply #2 on:** July 04, 2012, 08:26:01 AM »

Ignore Bibbly, he thought John Carter was good

Ironclad was enjoyable. Given they don't make too many films of this sort today, it was fun to see a modern take on the subject.

OSHIROmodels · « **Reply #3 on:** July 04, 2012, 08:44:10 AM »

Quote from: Malamute on July 04, 2012, 08:26:01 AM

Ignore Bibbly, he thought John Carter was good

But it was fucking great

cheers

James

Gibby · « **Reply #4 on:** July 04, 2012, 10:28:14 AM »

I really liked it, but they just had to throw a love story in there didn't they? As always, fully rushed and unbelievable, and totally out of place. Without the daft bint tagged on it's a great film about a bunch of filthy mercenary types. The combat is suitably brutal.

Mr.J · « **Reply #5 on:** July 04, 2012, 12:21:09 PM »

I thought it was good. Nice action scenes, but yeh waste of time romance tagged on.

Faust23 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 04, 2012, 04:13:05 PM »

John Carter was fucking great

Yeah, he shoulda tossed the bint to Vladimir Kulich and his Danes....

Paul Giamatti was excellent as King John. He has cornered the market on crazy asshole characters.

It's Medieval Magnificent Seven.

Patrick R · « **Reply #7 on:** July 04, 2012, 05:09:55 PM »

It's a ludicrously enjoyable flick, if you like bones being shattered, eyes gouged and people bifurcated ...

janner · « **Reply #8 on:** July 04, 2012, 05:58:27 PM »

Quote from: jimbibbly on July 04, 2012, 08:44:10 AM

But it was fucking great

cheers

James

+1 on John Carter.

I was left wanting err less from Ironclad and I pretty much love anything medieval - never did get to see the monitor...

Faust23 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 05, 2012, 01:28:54 AM »

Yeah, see I'm a sucker for greatswords. A pissed off Templar swinging a greatsword gets me all verklempt...

janner · « **Reply #10 on:** July 05, 2012, 06:58:16 AM »

Quote from: Faust23 on July 05, 2012, 01:28:54 AM

Yeah, see I'm a sucker for greatswords. A pissed off Templar swinging a greatsword gets me all verklempt...

Indeed, shame the Order had been disbanded by the time the long sword was in use and some 150 years after the time in which the film is set

In fact The time difference is the same as giving Henry V a musket.

Still, I also liked Jeremy Iron's long sword in Kingdom of Heaven

joroas · « **Reply #11 on:** July 05, 2012, 07:21:14 AM »

I thought John Carter was good, but it went the predicyable story line way of all of these types of film......

The fluff and effects were excellent, though.....

Faust23 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 05, 2012, 05:34:41 PM »

Quote from: janner on July 05, 2012, 06:58:16 AM

Indeed, shame the Order had been disbanded by the time the long sword was in use and some 150 years after the time in which the film is set

In fact The time difference is the same as giving Henry V a musket.

Still, I also liked Jeremy Iron's long sword in Kingdom of Heaven

The order was disbanded in 1312 which is IIRC the same year the movie uses. As for the 'longsword' you have to factor in that weapons of all kinds appear earlier and later than their most common 'period' of usage. That was one of the challenges I faced when writing the weapon rules for Brink of Battle. So, its not necessarily anachronistic for him to have one in 1312.

And now I have to go wash my mouth out with soap cuz you said Kingdom of Heaven...

aecurtis · « **Reply #13 on:** July 05, 2012, 06:40:57 PM »

Purefoy, Giamatti, Cox, Jacobi, Dance, Flemyng: a cast with great potential. Completely unrealized by the director.

Paid ten bucks for the DVD. Worth half that. Perhaps the one case where listening to the critics would have been wise.

Allen

Billythefish · « **Reply #14 on:** July 05, 2012, 07:26:39 PM »

I was very disappointed. They don't make nearly enough flicks in this hugely rich and overlooked genre and this one wont have sold it to well at all. Absolute zero charactorisation, depth or them being remotely interesting was the biggest flaw amongest many. Especially taking into account the potential strength of the cast, some of whom are completely exceptional (James Purefoy!!!) under the right direction.

The plot wasnt much more complicated and importantly completely un-origonal than lets hold this keep with twenty or so men against thousands with their epic siege equipment. Of course seven hundred years later the yanks won WW2 with the same by holding a silling little bridge in a village by slinging soggy socks against tanks. Though to make it more realistic Tom Hanks was in charge. They actually had alot more personality though it has to be said in that flick.

Looks like it was based on siege of Rochester in 1215, which was probably more interesting during the lets starve them out and watch phase.

.

News:

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Recent

Author Topic: Ironclad (Read 3130 times)

Related Topics