“Ironclad”: Film review

Entertaining for the gory battle scenes, but mawkish and cludgy in the dialogue and character development. Where the film really falls down the oubliette is in its abject lack of historical accuracy. Contrary to the film’s narrative:
– The siege was a success and King John did take the castle
– King John’s mercenaries were mostly Flemish and French, not Danish
– The Danes would not have been fighting to prevent Christianization of Denmark in any case because Denmark had already been Christianized by 1215
– The French did not arrive at the last minute to rescue the day – they arrived six months later
– The French didn’t really take the crown. In fact the Royalists won in 1217, putting young Henry III on the throne.
One wonders: “why bother make such a wrong film?”
One might also wonder: “why bother watch such a wrong film?”
I can’t answer the first question. I might answer the second question by saying “you get to see a guy’s head literally split in half with a battle axe.”
Enough said. Historical accuracy has nothing on headsplitting.MV5BMjI1NTU2NTI5NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDYzOTI1NQ@@._V1_SY317_CR8,0,214,317_AL_

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s