ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Library => Topic started by: Sir Gerard de Rodes on 2011-02-28, 18:04:36
-
Just thought you may like a look at this;
http://www.medievalists.net/2009/08/29/ironclad/
G
-
Well shared, m'lord- I look forward to this w/great anticipation! Paul Giamatti's an excellent actor and I'm a big fan of James Purefoy, loved him in everything he's done pretty much. Did I see Brian Cox in there too? The only thing I don't like about this is that I'm NOT in it!!! lol
-
Sounds great. I've been wanting to see a "Magnificent Seven" or "Seven Samurai" sort of story done with medieval knights.
I can't get the trailer to play, so I'll have to check again later.
-
Me too...I recently saw an homage to Kurosawa's Seven Samurai called Seven Swords and remarked to myself about how great it would be if this were done in the European medieval period. On another note, I just caught the first-look episode of Camelot on Starz (it is an original)- it was interesting enough to keep me watching the entire bit.
Now they will have competition by HBO's Game of Thrones, which (arguably) has higher star power and is based on 'A Song of Fire and Ice' series of books by a George RR Martin. Just from the previews I'm certain to watch this as well - and see which is better.
Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love), Claire Forlani (Meet Joe Black) and Eva Green (Casino Royale, Kingdom of Heaven) head the cast of Camelot while Sean Bean (LOTR), Iain Glen (KoH), Mark Addy (A Knight's Tale), Lena Headey (300, Sarah Connor Chronicles) and Peter Dinklage (the Station Agent, Narnia: Caspian) round out Game of Thrones.
Some good stuff coming on TV!!!
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS43OEmPUB8[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS43OEmPUB8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS43OEmPUB8)
-
Purefoy's in Camelot as well, playing King Lot of Lothian and Orkney...just watched the first episode again as the wife hadn't yet seen it. He's so good at playing the swashbuckling type, I'll watch anything he's in. Even George and the Dragon! Which wasn't bad, but Patrick Swayze brought it down for me. lol
-
I just had to buy it on the day it was released and was not disapointed.
The authenticity is a little questionable, but as sheer entertainment it was the mutts nutts !!
G.
-
Ok, so is Ironclad on DVD? I didn't even realize it had hit the theaters yet.
-
http://www.amazon.com/Ironclad-Paul-Giamatti/dp/B004X1Z14C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310787691&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Ironclad-Paul-Giamatti/dp/B004X1Z14C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310787691&sr=8-1)
This title will be released on July 26, 2011.
-
I'm so getting it!
-
I think I'll be picking it up next week then. :)
-
I pre-ordered this and Valhalla Rising (not a word, Sir Wolf! lol)...should be at my door by Aug 1 or so Amazon tells me.
-
Oh and one last thing of note---Buliwyf Hygiliaksen is also starring in Iron Clad. Just thought I'd put that out there. ;)
-
well who got it? how is it?
-
I bought it, but haven't watched it yet. It might wait til next week when Kat and I can watch it together.
Instead I watched Black Death tonight. :)
-
Sir Edward, what'd you think of it? My copy just came in the mail yesterday...but I've already seen it. Will watch it again over the weekend.
-
Black Death? It was OK. I enjoyed it. Because it was labeled "Chilling Gothic Horror" on the back of the package, I had made a point of pre-screening it before showing my wife-to-be.
In many ways it was just a typical medieval-style film. A band of soldiers and/or adventurers gather up on a quest and/or mission, have a few bumps in the road along the way, until they end up in an intractable situation.
It never struck me as a "gothic horror" in any way, except that toward the end it does take a much darker tone than other films of this type. And while it has action scenes, it doesn't rely on them like other similar films. So it was familiar and yet somewhat different too. I think it made for a good story, but at the same time it's not a movie I'll watch to cheer me up, either. :)
-
No, definitely not cheery...but I liked it nonetheless, maybe because it didn't have the usual Hollywood happy ending. Not everything in life turns out well, that was the message I took away with me.
-
a review here: http://thereenactor.webs.com/previousarticles.htm (http://thereenactor.webs.com/previousarticles.htm)
-
Not a bad review, and about what I'd expected from the movie itself. It just arrived yesterday so I'll be screening it sometime this weekend no doubt.
-
a review here: http://thereenactor.webs.com/previousarticles.htm (http://thereenactor.webs.com/previousarticles.htm)
Jason is a good friend of mine and I would say his review is fair. Historical foe pah`s aside I still found it entertaining ;)
G.
-
Ok, just watched this yesterday with the wife...LOVED it. Thoroughly entertained...altho I agree with Jason, in that the love interest could've been left on the cutting room floor and the movie would not have suffered one bit.
I thought Paul Giamatti was very convincing as the dastardly King John, and of course, thought James Purefoy played the stoic Templar well. Not like he hasn't had any previous experience portraying a knight, eh? lol
All in all, we both thought it a good movie and I'd already added it to the collection so we're all to the good. Also got Valhalla Rising...will review that after I've seen it over the weekend.
-
... Also got Valhalla Rising...will review that after I've seen it over the weekend.
I rented this movie off Netflix a few months ago and was disappointed. It left me with the thought of it being an epic movie that could have been. It starts off engagingly enough but then the last third of the movie skews off haphazardly down an artsy-fartsy trail to a land dominated by irrelevant and meaningless abuse of impressionistic type imagery that totally fractures the story line and leaves the viewer sitting there wondering…
“WTF did I just watch?!”
But that’s just my take on the movie! ;)
-
Oh damn...really? I sorta wish I had not read that because now my outlook's colored...anyhow, I'm wondering should I even bother watching it now! Thank you, sir! :)
-
By all means watch the movie now that you have it. As I stated the first half is good! Especially Mads Mikkelsen's fight scenes, which really adds to the disapointment factor because it starts off so great. ;)
-
I picked up the Ironclad movie and watched it last night and it is an epic WIN! Loved the movie and very impressed with them capturing the brutality of medieval weaponry! :)
-
Dang it, I'm chomping at the bit to see this one. And Kat and I just haven't had the time yet. So much to do to get the tiny little house working for two people and three cats.
-
You mean, and find a place for all your beautiful pointies where they will not inadvertently attack milady, no? LOL
The cats are already good to go I'm thinking...mine happens to love swords. Never figured out why.
But if you can, watch Ironclad...the battle scenes alone make it worthwhile.
Sir Brian, I will watch Valhalla Rising as I am a Mikkelsen fan...I'll try not to fall asleep during the second half!
-
... Also got Valhalla Rising...will review that after I've seen it over the weekend.
... It starts off engagingly enough but then the last third of the movie skews off haphazardly down an artsy-fartsy trail to a land dominated by irrelevant and meaningless abuse of impressionistic type imagery that totally fractures the story line and leaves the viewer sitting there wondering…
Nicely stated review, you should do this for a living! ;)
But if you can, watch Ironclad...the battle scenes alone make it worthwhile.
I'll give it a try soon. I'm so very out of date with my movie watching, every "movie date" involves children 6 and under which limits the field considerably. :(
-
Lord Rodney, they have to start appreciating all things medieval at some point, why not a rousing, rollicking adventure...not necessarily Ironclad, I think it too grisly for children...but maybe the Princess Bride? Get them started on liking swords and it is on and popping from then! ;)
-
Hey, Is Ironclad still around to pick up? I think I'll get it.
-
Nathan, it should...it just came out on DVD a week or so ago I think. I got mine already, going to view it again this weekend.
-
really? a week ago? Man, how come it wasn't in theaters?
I'll make sure to snatch up a copy.
-
really? a week ago? Man, how come it wasn't in theaters?
I'll make sure to snatch up a copy.
I think it was, but didn't hang around long. Maybe it was a limited release? I'm not sure.
-
It was in the theaters, just not in the U.S. It was filmed entirely in Wales, making it a Great British film that apparently did well in theaters overseas. I do not know how well it would do over here as moviegoers tend to misunderstand or miscategorize medieval films of this nature, and the violence and bloodshed are definitely not family friendly...unless it is my family you happen to be a part of. LOL
Interesting to note, Megan Fox was initially signed on to play the part of Isabel but she left the project and Kata Mara was signed on. Let me tell you, that's like downgrading from an Albion to a Starfire, you know? Luckily, the romantic scenes could've been completely excised w/out harming the picture in the slightest so...not much to miss there.
-
I've watched it, and will reserve my comments for a later date, once many of you have had a chance to see it. Have seen Black Death as well. ;D
-
haahha love ure new profile pic
-
haahha love ure new profile pic
Thanks. ;)
-
I finally got around to watching Ironclad. I enjoyed it. It definitely doesn't spare you the brutality of war. But man, some good action there. Marshal's sword was a bit oversized for the period, I think. There were longswords, yes, but I don't think there would have been many 5-footers like that. Not impossible, but certainly uncommon. Theatrically oversized is a good way to put it, I think.
Would the Danes have used woad? That stood out to us as a potential "mistake" as well, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about them to know for sure.
Overall I think it was a good action/siege movie. The back cover compares it to Seven Samurai and Braveheart. I can see why they said that. But part of the charm of Seven Samurai is that the samurai were defending a village against marauders. In this story, they're defending against the king, against the wishes of the owners of the castle. So they're not entirely welcome. And even though they're fighting for a cause they believe in, it's more distant and political. Not defending the helpless, like in Seven Samurai or The Magnificent Seven.
Still, we enjoyed it. And we always enjoy seeing King John get disappointed. :)
-
*Review disclaimer* The owner of this post in no way means for the readers not to watch this film and form their own opinions. This is the personal opinion of a simple viewer and not intended to influence the viewing pleasures/preferences of others.
The movie was good for escapist entertainment value, but I found it funny that a "Templar" who was wanting out of the Order because of "mental baggage" he was carrying since the Crusade, would quickly tell everyone that it would be a Templar that saved them. Also, why not at the beginning when he witnessed his fellow Templars being cut down during his rescue operation, did he not go and inform a local preceptory of the activities of King John, leverage the power of a multitude of Red Friars and the Pope? And live pigs for the final event?
-
There is just no pleasing everyone, is there? I imagine they could've done those things but it wouldn't have served the storyline much...I made mention of this before but I never look to Hollywood to keep things historically accurate- probably too costly in research and materials and would only please those of us who know better. We are a much smaller minority compared to the unwashed masses, who will eat whatever is placed in front of them and call it good. ;)
-
Yeah, there's a lot we have to overlook in films. The one thing I always feel that is done "wrong" in most period films is that the way in which the characters talk and carry themselves often overlooks the culturally ingrained behaviors that they would have had regarding their station.
That is, they often have characters "speaking out of turn" and getting away with it, in ways that simply would not have been acceptable back then. The societal strata were seen as all part of God's plan. You knew your place, and you stayed in it. To do otherwise was to risk a harsh and brutal punishment. To be accurate, characters should never speak plainly and without prompting to those of a higher station. Not without showing proper reverence.
Having said that, in Ironclad, when Baron Aubigny says something like "Hi John!" from the top of the wall, it worked, because he was at that point supposed to be showing open defiance. Most audience members either wouldn't catch that, or they'd realize it was an insult to King John. But to those of us in the know, we realize that it was a deep insult to talk that way to a king. A clear defiance meant to say that he didn't recognize him as royalty.
-
You know...that is not something I have ever thought to listen for but you are absolutely right. Funny, I'll have that little filter on henceforth when viewing. Cheers, I learned something new today.
-
Here are some more details that they got wrong in Ironclad, but you can understand why they did them, for dramatic effect.
The rebels had more than a team of 7 men to take control of the castle and secure it before King John's army arrived. But it was still a small force, of about 100.
Also, the pigs used for the fire in the mine were actually slaughtered so that the pig fat could be coated onto the support timbers in the mine shaft, ensuring they burn away rapidly and cause a sudden collapse.
They mined the curtain wall first. Then a second time against the keep, but the keep was bisected with an interior wall, and the other half remained fortified.
Reinforcements for the rebels were expected from London, but they turned back when they heard how large John's army was, and also John had the bridge to Rochester destroyed, blocking their access anyway.
Also, the rebels ended up surrendering to King John after being starved out (they ate the horses, but that ran out too).
Sources:
I don't know how accurate it is, but here's a good little description of the historical siege: http://www.jamesmdeem.com/castlestory2.htm (http://www.jamesmdeem.com/castlestory2.htm)
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_Castle)
Some photos of the castle: http://www.anxietymadewell.com/photos/castles/rochester_castle.html (http://www.anxietymadewell.com/photos/castles/rochester_castle.html)
-
nice lil history lesson there. thank you!
-
Oh also, I think they showed the wrong side of the keep collapse. I believe in the film they showed a collapse of the inner-most corner of the keep, with the front door.
Historically it was the opposite corner, nestled back against the curtain wall. The tower in the curtain wall behind the keep was badly damaged, and that corner of the keep with it's turret as well. Both were rebuilt as round towers afterward to better deflect incoming artillery, if I've been reading correctly.
-
LOL @ that
Gotta love dramatic license...those changes make no sense to me unless the set designers screwed up.
-
In the case of which corner fell, I think they changed it on purpose, since they wanted to take the story into the courtyard. The captives who had their hands and feet chopped off weren't captured as they lay injured in the courtyard, historically. Instead, they were folks who were sent out of the castle by the rebels, to reduce the need for food. And then some had hands and feet cut off by King John (boy, he was a right bastard, wasn't he?).
-
Yes he was...it also tells me I need to bone up on my history - wouldn't the Marshal have been there? Were we to draw some correlation between the one in the movie with the Marshal we know and love? I digress...by naming him Thomas I knew he was not of that brood...still, I thought William would've made an appearance, at least in protest of John's actions if nothing else.
-
Yeah, I'm not sure where William Marshal was during that siege. He remained loyal to his kings, including John. But he was also one of the few who could stand up to John during his tirades.
There was an incident where John was blaming everyone around him for things not going his way (a frequent occurrence with John), and laid a bunch of blame right at William's feet in open court. Sir William threw his gauntlet down right on the spot. When no one stepped up to champion the king, John backed down. Talk about a ballsy move. But it was well understood that a knight had the right to protect his reputation by combat. :)
-
Sir William threw his gauntlet down right on the spot. When no one stepped up to champion the king, John backed down. Talk about a ballsy move. But it was well understood that a knight had the right to protect his reputation by combat.
*sigh* given the cesspool of humanity I must contend with on a daily basis at my job I find myself yearning for those days! :(
-
You and I both, Sir Brian. Working in the Fed, I've witnessed all kind of injustices wreaked upon the workforce, and all hidden behind political speech; it almost evokes the Roman Senate only the knives used today are words, not steel.
-
it almost evokes the Roman Senate only the knives used today are words, not steel.
Now I had an image of in my head of the senate standing in a circle around Caesar, shouting "Ni! Ni!" :)
-
That's what they do NOW...only the insults and threats are veiled in polite speech and delivered in a calm manner. Usually. I've overheard dust-ups amongst senior management that had me wondering whether or not we're as civilized as we keep saying we are.
-
Congress won't be civilized until someone can go in there and throw down a gauntlet, and resolve things by right of combat. :)
-
HUZZAH! I would LOVE for that to be brought back. Because I'll tell you this- no one, and I mean NO ONE would be so quick to speak out of turn if they knew the potential consequence was a gauntlet being thrown down in challenge.
For my part, I'm not above a little bloodletting to get a valid point across...even if it is my own. Not that I cut myself...don't want any misconceptions. lol
-
Rochester Castle was truly one of the most inpenetratable early Norman towers of it`s age. King Johns men had to tunnel through very hard rock, under the curtain wall, into the strong foundations of the tower, where it was closest to the curtain wall.
Here is a view of the tower after it has been re-built using the latest "round tower" technology.
http://www.englishheritageprints.com/image/rochester_castle_j860082_488483.jpg (http://www.englishheritageprints.com/image/rochester_castle_j860082_488483.jpg)
As you can see, the curtain wall tower has also had to be re-built.
Here is a view of the deviding wall, Sir Ed mentions, that held out untill the very last throws of the siege;
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/17/8f/7d/within-the-castle-walls.jpg (http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/17/8f/7d/within-the-castle-walls.jpg)
G.
-
Saw the movie last night and loved it! Best period flick I've seen in a while (Hollywood medling aside). The only other thing I can say is: I'm glad I'm not the Duke of Albany! :o
-
Think I'll give this another look over the weekend...I really enjoyed it but now it is time for me to put my detail glasses on.
-
I saw this last night, and enjoyed it. I don't know why, but I think the first half of the movie was better than the second. I also thought it a bit odd that Marshall only wore the templar surcoat for the first battle, and never again afterwards. I guess with the extreme potency of his sword, he could get away with it. :)
-
That was some sword, huh? Geez.
-
I'll say! Did you catch the part where he practically cut that guy in half from crown to crotch?
-
I'll say! Did you catch the part where he practically cut that guy in half from crown to crotch?
Yep, that's what I was referencing. Brutal!
-
That was the best execution scene I've seen in a while...I just watched this again over the weekend, and I am loving it!!!
-
its now on netflicks. maybe i can see it
-
ok watching it now.
meh, ive seen better ive seen worse. hehehe dark dirty and lotsa blood
the Danes would have looked like everyone else at this time, not the viking romances that they were shown as. but you gotta keep the audiences knowing who is who. :)
funny seeing the 13th Warrior Beowulf doing the same role hehehe.
-
Basically...it was good to see him onscreen again.
-
I saw a pretty good quote about this on another forum. "If I want history, I'll watch a documentary. Movies are for entertainment."
I think if we pointed out all the historical flaws in almost any movie, we'd go nutty and lose all of the enjoyment. My favorite movies aren't historical in any way. :)
-
I know I've said that before, or something very much like. Hollywood is never going to cater to the likes of us...the cost to benefit ratio wouldn't do anything to help their bottom line because most people will go see it anyway, historical accuracy be damned.
-
I saw this film today and I loved it. Better than a lot of the bigger budget releases. I even noticed Marshall had riveted maille due to my friends high def TV. Didn't like the woad or paganism on the Danes though, that felt totally out of place. But the film was brutal and very dark, almost like something I'd direct. Also liked how the armor actually worked, Marshall got hit multiple times (once even by the big axe) but his maille and coat of plates actually held together and protected him. I also thought the scene where he donned his great helm and coif and used the flail was just plain awesome, he got beaten up after being knocked off the horse but still kicked major ass and I liked how the armor protected him. That was practically the only way to beat a fully armored knight, knock him on the ground and beat him to death. I now want to get a great helm I thought it looked so badass.
-
Gotta love the scenes with the Maciejowski chopper! :P
-
Oh that was brutal, I was actually quite impressed seeing that in the film and my friend was freaking out cause it was so violent. Shame the guy using it was chopped in half by the Danish leader.
-
I saw this film today and I loved it. Better than a lot of the bigger budget releases. I even noticed Marshall had riveted maille due to my friends high def TV. Didn't like the woad or paganism on the Danes though, that felt totally out of place.
The woad, yes, but not the paganism...they were pagans, after all.