All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Hmmm, I don't see a thread here, but I know I've read feedback. Must be on the Netflix streaming thread, but it's tough to find posts there, as they're all jumbled together.
First of all, this is now streaming on Netflix.
Secondly, I really liked it and don't quite get all the bad word of mouth it's received.
Shot on a $25 Million budget and not theatrically released (that I can see), with a very solid, but far from household name cast, Ironclad delivers the goods in a very bloody, gorefest of a medieval siege flick. If you like such movies, I see no reason why you wouldn't like this.
Let's look at a few things here...
The gore - Yep, it's gory, it's bloody, it's gruesome, it's even mean spirited...and it all looks pretty good, save for some fake looking CGI blood splatter. Although many will appreciate this (and I'm sure one of them), I think the level of graphic violence actually turned people off in this case, and may even be one of the many reasons this didn't get a release like it deserved to.
The cast/acting - Very good, very strong, and IMO, downright impressive. Movie watchers will recognize many of the players here but probably only be able to name Paul Giamatti by name, which is a shame, as many deserve credit, and are solid actors. I thought the female lead Kate Mara was not only shockingly beautiful, but also did a great job in her limited screen time. Also want to throw a shout out to Vladimir Kulich, as the Dane Captain Tiberius. I recognized him immediately from his stellar performance in the oh-so under-appreciated 13th Warrior. He's great here as well, and really makes an imposing bid baddie, even though he's somehow 55 years old (he doesn't look older than mid 30's). I've read where many critics seemed to like Paul Giamatti's King John portrayal, but IMO, although definitely not bad, he comes off as one of the weaker performers here.
The production - I've heard about lots of on set and pre-production problems here, but don't know the actual details. I do know several well known actors were attached to this, then fell out. I know Paul Giamatti shot all his work i only 7 days, which seems strange or amazing, depending on hos you look at it. I also know there were some 14 Producers attached and IMO, that's never a good thing, as control and direction becomes cumbersome. Anyway, for the most part, I think the movie's production quality was god, and much better than its reputation. Sets looked good. Costumes looked very good. FX good. The only thing I noticed, which was quite odd, was numerous little "cuts" that weren't perfectly matched, as if reshoots had been done but not properly fit in (exactly) - basically, at times, it had a rough edge to it and didn't seem to be a smooth running effort over all.
Reality and detail - I'm sure many know that this is based on actual history, although it has definitely been given a Hollywood makeover and many actual facts have been twisted, turned, and done away with, which in some regards, is a problem, IMO. As said above, the sets look good. The battles look and feel real. The final siege is well executed and you just gotta love the use of pigs and their fat to burn the castle from underneath. But, a few things didn't quite work for me. In reality, the siege of Rochester lasted 7 weeks, compared to several months in the film - this is an issue as food was beyond scarce and I didn't buy their ability to survive this long. Also, there were actually over 100 defenders of Rochester, while in the movie, there were less than 20. They needed the extra 80, as it would have added to the realism (how can 20 seriously defend a siege from over 1,000 mercenary soldiers?), as well as providing an 80 death scenes .
Anyway, much better than it's given credit for, IMO. I liked it alot and for me, it's the kind of epic tale that I wouldn't mind seeing again.
If you read my movie reviews, you'll actually see numerous flicks that I enjoy. I do see so many and the vast majority blow, so I'm sure you're used to seeing me bashing this and that.
But hey, just like in a script, if it works, I'm going to come out and say so. If it doesn't...well...you know how that goes.
This was mildly entertaining but drawn out. All of the characters except for the king were 2-dimensional place holders and aside from some predictable romance elements, the only story going on here was that of a single siege from beginning to end. That'd be fine if it was more of a character picture, but it wasn't...so what's the point? I'd much rather see a 150 million dollar story-less Michael Bay film than a 25 million dollar one.
It was bland, boring, overly long, and poorly written. I'd say skip it.
I don't think the point of this film was to create a great "story", or wonderfully deep characters. It is a historical depiction of a bloody, brutal time, and that's what it offers.
Enjoy your Michael Bay "epics". Guess it's peeps like you that we have to blame for the type of "Blockbuster" films that Hollywood and Bay keep spitting out.
Wow, I enjoy that you're so incredibly defensive over a film you had nothing to do with that you'd directly insult another person.
I despise Michael Bay and his movies, I was simply saying that I think this film is striving to BE one of those blockbuster-style films that's only purpose is to depict battles. And my point about Bay was that if I wanted to waste my time on a blockbuster like that, then I'd much rather waste it on one with some money behind it so that it could be done properly (for example, your complaint about the 20 men instead of a few hundred).
You admit that you don't believe this film set out to tell a great "story" or to create deep "characters"...sounds like a Michael Bay movie to me! But I guess it's OK since it only cost' $25 million to make, because then you can still indulge in the lack of story and character and still feel artsy and "indie."
Now, if you were personally involved with the creation of this film, then I apologize and continue to insult me all you want. If not, then I'd say...get over yourself.
Elmer, I'm sorry you feel I personally insulted you. That was not my intent. And BTW, who uses the word "peeps"? I do...quite often in board discussion, actually. Easier to type and just a slang I use.
In no way was this film trying to be an "epic". It wasn't even theatrically released.
The 20 men defending the castle vs. the actual 100 was not done to lesson the budget. It was most likely done so that we'd have much more screen time with the rag tag defenders themselves, ala "The Magnificent Seven" or "The Dirty Dozen". The cast is huge anyway you look at it, with 2 complete forces shown and engaging in battle.
It's a historical tale that tells a true story of a siege on a famous castle by an infamous king. If you're saying you would have enjoyed a more Hollywoodized version with snappy BS dialogue and completely unrealistic characters, I can understand that. And as I said, you are not alone in that vein of thought.
Personally, I appreciated to for exactly what it was, and exactly what it set out to do. Anyone looking and expecting more made a mistake in the first place, watching it.
And, no, I had nothing to do with this film, but if I did, I'd be quite proud.
Hope that makes sense and apologies if you took my words another way.
I agree there should have been more extras for the castle sieging and defending, but I forgave it due to some dramatic license. I understood the casting of Giamatti; the film is from the POV of Knight Templar Marshal and those who side with him. Thus, the King is not just seen as a sadistic, backstabbing tyrant...but also as a warmongering buffoon.
Jeff- it was theatrical overseas. Went right to DVD in the States.
Saw this recently and was pretty underwhelmed. I read the reviews from overseas and was prepared for a pretty tepid affair. High production values were the highlight of this dramatically inert film. I didn't care about the plot and the characters did not engage me, at all.
This, and "The Eagle" were big international epic boxoffice belly flops. Hopefully producers will shy away from these "micro epics". You can throw "Centurion" into that pile too, though a much better film, IMO. The first pair feel more like calculated attempts at grand scale than stories.
Gore hounds will find plenty to latch onto in Ironclads. As to the A-list cast, they've all been in much better period pieces, IMO.
E.D.
LATEST NEWS CineVita Films is producing a short based on my new feature!