Netflix threw Ironclad in my path recently. Apparently I like "Gritty yet Wildly Unrealistic British Period Pieces" or whatever.
Confession: I did watch the whole thing, and I did enjoy it a little. But I have been a huge fan of the early Middle Ages for a long time. I felt like Ironclad was visually true to this period, at least. Settings were both dirtier and less luxurious than they are in many movies about this time period. The heroine (oh, the heroine!) had only a few dresses, for example, and the furniture in the castle was sparse and basic.
The details of the battle sequences also seemed very realistic, which is both good and bad. Nobody slows down and then magically speeds up as they deliver a killing blow (see Cracked for a hilarious article on this.) On the other hand, if you don't care to dwell on the details of grisly battle wounds (I don't), you might be displeased.
The plot is silly and filled with war movie cliches. The castle is defended from King John by less than 20 men (in real life it was around 100). The hero (played by the excellent James Purefoy) is released from membership in the Knights Templar at the end. Umm... people took vows a bit more seriously than that 800 years ago, I sort of thought.
And of course, the poor heroine is compelled to run out into the castle yard during a battle and wave a mace around. Because that's an obligatory part of all movies of this type now, apparently. (And thus I still get students who think Spartan queens were full paricipants in ruling and waging war. Thanks, 300!) Pin It
No comments:
Post a Comment