Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie's plot.

There’s a reason why most indie films are comedies or romances or horror films – and it’s because those sorts of movies can be made relatively cheaply. When you have maybe a few million dollars at your disposal, that doesn’t really cover the cost of staging epic battles or the elaborate set-pieces of your standard big budget action flick. So, when Jonathan English’s medieval action epic Ironclad turned up last year, I was immediately intrigued – not only is at an action film, but it was a historical one too. You almost never see that in the indie world – who can afford all those costumes?

To be fair, English’s film is more of an indie in spirit than anything. This action extravaganza boasts a $25 million dollar budget – which is small change for Hollywood, but dwarfs the shooting budget of the average independently financed film. While that chunk of change isn’t exactly a pittance, it’s still impressive that Ironclad gets so much bang for the buck.

Set not long after the time period explored in Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood, Ironclad finds the villainous King John (Paul Giamatti) forced to sign the Magna Carta. Displeased, he gets the Pope’s blessing and immediately sets out to reclaim England as his own by crushing everyone who cosigned with him.

The key to John’s plan is to recapture Rochester Castle, which is vital for controlling supply lines to the rest of the country. He hires the Danish army to do his bidding (with a promise that if they succeed, the Pope will leave their lands in peace), but soon runs into resistance. Baron Albany (Brian Cox) has enlisted a ragtag band of warriors to defend the castle from the King’s men – led by a disenchanted Templar named Marshal (James Purefoy). Outnumbered and armed only with the weapons they can carry and what can be improvised inside the castle, Marshal and his men face down the far superior force, hoping to hold the castle until the French can arrive to save the day.

English certainly deserves credit for making a film for $25 million that looks like it cost four times as much. Ironclad is a worthy companion piece to Gibson’s Braveheart, but at a fraction of the cost. The comparisons won’t end there though – the film is perhaps even more violent than Gibson’s ode to Scottish hero William Wallace.

Unlike so many medieval films, Ironclad actually does an admirable job of presenting the combat in a realistic fashion. Warfare in the middle ages was not a pretty thing – weapons were crude and effective, the combat was brutal and waged without much in the way of grace, and death was painful. English’s film nails this aspect of era perfectly. The sheer number of cracked skulls and severed limbs in this film rivals a lot of the horror movies I’ve seen over the course of the past few months. The special effects and gore gags are incredibly well done, and the fight choreography manages to straddle the fine line between authentic and entertaining.

Unfortunately, the rest of Ironclad doesn’t fare quite so well.

The performances from Cox and Giamatti are every bit as great as one would expect. Giamatti’s King John is a monster, and when Giamatti starts ranting it’s hard not to sort of think back to him playing the over-the-top program director at WNBC in Private Parts. Giamatti’s John is a nice mixture of delusional, insane, and terrifying. He may not be a man of great physical stature, but he makes up for it with his psychopathic tendencies.

Unfortunately, once you get past Cox and Giamatti, the rest of the cast is merely serviceable. James Purefoy is generally dependable, and he does what he can with the character of Marshal, but the script works overtime to make Marshal incredibly non-descript for a lead character. Purefoy’s so restrained that he gets overshadowed by Cox and Giamatti, even though neither of their characters gets as much screentime.

Ironclad’s other misstep is in its decision to work in a romantic subplot between Marshal and Isabel (Kate Mara). The fledgling love affair between these two characters serves no real purpose and tends to bog the film down. It’s predictable in its execution, and honestly the film would be better without it. This is a film about men fighting in the face of impossible odds – stopping to have scenes where Mara’s character does everything but strip naked to get Purefoy’s attention detracts from the story.

Like so many other medieval films, Ironclad plays fast and loose with historical fact in order to tell a better story. While you won’t be able to watch this flick as research for a history paper on the Magna Carta, the changes to the real story mostly work. If you’re not a serious history buff, I doubt you’ll notice the bulk of the changes in the first place.

Ironclad may not be as great as Braveheart, but it also cost significantly less money to make. Jonathan English has done something fairly impressive with this British import – he’s created a full scale period action film on a budget that wouldn’t pay for special effects on the standard Hollywood blockbuster. The film is not without its flaws, but the period detail (in both combat and costumes), solid supporting performances, and brutal combat make Ironclad a face-cleaving good time.

Recommended: Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Good for a Rainy Day