Films with a clear focus on action and scenes of fights and violence are a very popular and versatile genre. In addition to the standard shootouts, this concept of entertainment for the viewer through a large number of fights and violence can be transferred to other scenery or time - and did in this film, deciding to make an action movie on a historical theme.
The basis was taken the historical period of medieval England during the reign of John Landless - a king who went down in history as not the most popular and wise politician. Here he acts as the main villain, terrorizing local feudal lords and urging them to submit. The role of good guys is a remote castle with freedom-loving guys besieged there with the Templar returning from the Crusades as the main character.
The plot of the film is exceptionally schematic and banal, which is characteristic of the genre of the action movie. It serves solely to justify the siege of the castle by good bad men long in the film. Characters are standard for the genre - a stern, accomplished knight from the Holy Land, the daughter of the castle baron as a lady of the heart, standard supporting types like a prankster, a coward, etc. However, the picture was lucky with the actors - the main roles were taken, though not stars of the first magnitude, but still recognizable and talented people who try to squeeze the maximum out of their characters.
What the film did was fight scenes and scenery with costumes. Before us appears, albeit not very historical, but at least not frank fantasy gloomy film with a high level of cruelty and blood. Fights are shown well and also with realism and brutality. Watching battles and short moments of respite from them is very interesting, especially for lovers of historical themes in films.
The Iron Knight is a good middle man. This is a good action movie with swords and knights with smart actors and a normal budget. Yes, it's still an ordinary entertaining movie about fights and platitudes about how important freedom is and that tyranny is bad, but that's what it was supposed to be. Those elements that should be done well in such a movie are made on conscience, which allows you to enjoy watching.
7 out of 10
A powerful bloody epic of a just Knight of the Templars, whose ecclesiastical views contradict the king’s new authoritarian policies. Director Jonathan English was able to convey the darkness of the battle, the drama of the defense of a strategic fortress and the dispute over the legal rights to freedom of the people of England.
After the exhibition, the plot immediately puts labels, showing the anger of King John and pushing aside the Knights Templar. Immediately feel the bloody spirit of the Middle Ages (nostalgia for Game of Thrones?). Death, betrayal and justification of the creed of the last knight of the order. Perhaps the latter was shown for drama, but the Order of the Templars numbered thousands of warriors throughout Europe, which could not lead to the absence of such in the 13th century.
Historically, the tape warms up interest with the Magna Carta. A kind of legal act that enshrines the rights of the people of England to privileges and legal status agreed with King John. The fact that the king had the nickname “landless”, he, you see, did not like, so he was offended and went to conquer the land. What is good about the picture, it is not large-scale, but has the significance of the siege of Rochester Castle.
We are introduced to the last knight, the search for allies and anchorage in the fortress. Political infighting is fueling the situation by the fact that for all parties to the conflict, the fortress opens the way to London, “where fish, chips, tea, shoddy food, bad weather, Mary, ..., Poppins”. Secondary heroes perfectly fit into the mission of protection, and the set of allies suggests that faith in the king is absent.
The atmosphere of the Middle Ages has a positive effect on viewing. Very skillfully, the plot leads the main characters to the castle to demonstrate the honor and courage of valiant warriors. All motives and plans are erased, we have a few men against a thousandth army. Beautiful, bloody and intriguing. This film, though long gaining momentum, but on the siege of the castle is able to captivate its decoration. Cohesion of the team, where among the fighters there are newcomers who have never held a sword, there are brave warriors, there are mercenaries and the usual protection of the king.
In the key of battle and bloodshed, the theme of violation of the Templar dinners and female seduction is raised. Let it be open, but for a variety of military affairs. In a short period of time, the authors showed willpower, a beautiful battle, and dramatic deaths. A lot of cruelty, footage of executions, torture and just death occupy part of the timekeeping. The cunning tricks of the invaders, the problems of the allies and attempts to stop the offensive are a big plus of the film. Let somewhere something was missing, but passion and blood excite when watching, and drama and courage temper this story.
Overall, it was good. The Iron Knight did not take on the creed of a superhero, but had the same wounds and defeats as the others, which makes him human. Issues of church oaths and lunch breaks are also raised. The finale beautifully completes the narrative. There's something so beautiful and epic about this movie, even though it's a matter of culture and interest.
The era of the Crusades is closely intertwined with the military Christian Order of the Templars. Both the first and second in our time are actively romanticized, computer games are created, where the Templars are presented in a not the best light, and films with heroes in the face of the Knights Templar are filmed. One of these films was The Iron Knight.
This film is in a sense about the order of the poor knights of Christ, but the main part with which the Templars are always associated is absent. This part is East. The film takes place in Europe. In the courtyard of the thirteenth century, the era of the major Crusades is coming to an end, and many knights return from the troubled East to troubled Europe.
The protagonist Thomas Marshall (James Purfoy) is almost a former Knight Templar, but there are no former Templars. Taking revenge as a personal motive, he and several other dubious warriors undertake to defend Rochester Castle from King John. I will not go into history and describe the political events of those years, this is not necessary, since the film is not made based on historical events. Even the castle doesn't look real.
What catches your eye is the blood of the Iron Knight. This feature of the film is captivating, because it is impossible to watch a film with swords and axes, without dismembering. Throughout the film, blood will flow through the stream. It will be a plus for someone and a minus for someone.
Their characters can be distinguished by King John performed by Paul Giamatti. Very good role of Paul and excellent work of Sergey Burunov in dubbing this character. From the characters of the defending side can be noted Baron William (Brian Cox). This character, unlike all others, has a clear purpose to protect England and its people.
Thomas Marshall, as a knight, can make the viewer watch his battle scenes with interest (which is only the last battle with an overseas general). But this is how the Templar causes a certain rejection (but who cares about it). It is known that the Templars made a lot of vows and strictly adhered to them. It was impossible to ignore God’s promises. And here we should move on to the main female character. Lady Isabel (Kate Mara) is certainly a beautiful woman, but the writer has clearly overdone her harassing to poor Templar. For most of the film, he follows the Marshall, saying that they are very similar, and the vow is just a sound, and they urgently need to sleep. This is all very funny and ridiculous.
Overall, The Iron Knight is a good movie, but not a good one. A tough middle man. The creators managed to convey the grayness and dirt of the Middle Ages and the hopelessness of the situation in which the heroes of the film found themselves. It is interesting to watch the events, the battle scenes are performed magnificently in places. Yes, the pathos of speeches is skyrocketing, some plot events cause bewilderment, and Lady Isabel causes laughter, but still this is a strong action movie that will not leave indifferent.
7 out of 10
When reviewing Luc Besson’s Joan of Arc, I noted my admiration for the quality of the battle scenes, equating this film with Saving Private Ryan. Who would have thought I’d see a movie like this in a little while? So, the Iron Knight.
Selection as a plot for a historical film of an event that has not undergone wide coverage already guarantees that there are no problems with writing the script. If, among other things, to study in detail the context of the era itself and focus the viewer’s attention on how people lived / existed / survived in this very environment, then most of the problems with the selection of scenery, matchmaking and the creation of key characters, even with the study of characters for them, would disappear.
That was enough. Maybe not for everything, but enough.
Especially for himself, your humble servant noted, of course, the appearance in the frame of Vladimir Kulich - this Czech, whose ancestors, according to some theories associated with the Normanry of the Russian state, cut with the Vikings, just born to play brave Scandinavians at any time. It seemed that the era of the Vikings at the time of the first baronial war in England was long gone - no, you still see in Kulich a kind of king Bulweif from the Thirteenth Warrior ... for some reason, painted as a Pict. But that's another story.
No less pleased and the lead actor James Purfoy. Before that, having played Solomon Kane, he showed that portraying dark contradictory characters who yearn for personal liberation and find him in the fight for other people's lives is his favorite.
So I had this simple question: Why are there so many negative reviews of this movie? As I began to watch, I was hoping to find out at the same time what is there in this film that would make it worthwhile to ignore it and not return to it again? The view showed the exact opposite. Of course, the shoals are present, and even purely factual. But are they significant?
Let’s look at the downsides and downsides.
So, the first and most important accusation of this film is "copypast" with the released in the same year "Game of Thrones". Your humble servant, in fact, disassembled hysterical laughter at this point, but let us turn to the facts. The first series of "IP" was released in 2011, that is, a year after the release of "Iron Knight". Of course, this fact may be enough to cross out the claims of critics, but we will get to the end. The atmosphere of "scandals, intrigues and investigations", which is a traditional plot-forming axis in the world of Westeros, in the "Iron Knight" simply does not. Instead, there is the story of how a group of barons, after having forced Prince John (King John of the Landless, sorry) to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, are forced to endure a total payback from the humiliated king, backed up by the blows of hundreds of hired Danish axes. And they tolerate and resist under the slogans of service to the people. The question of how much the people really need the barons, who, under the king, what, without him, would still continue racketeering the peasants in law on their feuds, should perhaps be postponed. One way or another, compared to the complex plot of the PLIO, this is just a story about the struggle for freedom, albeit class (sorry, class) limited.
Another and no less serious accusation is ill-conceived characters. This was especially true of Thomas Marshall, the Templar at the station, who, under the burden of the situation, scored numerous vows, calmly talks and makes love to the wife of the commandant of the fortress. But, you painful ones, here it is said in pure English that it is difficult for him to do so, because it is a sin, and yet, in his own words, he is an organization which, if the stars are thus united, will become the last barrier between this girl and death.
Does that mean there are no downsides to the film? Got it. Sadly enough, Rochester Castle fell, and even the bravery of the defenders and the will to win could not prevent the Danes from breaking through. Moreover, John received the victory not even by force of arms, but by starvation. In the film, they managed to fight this by raiding the Danish rear, in reality, they could not overcome it, and the defenders themselves surrendered, as a result of which the French, arriving, entered Rochester with a fight. . .
Well, the grip of the sword and Purfoy frankly strained. We, apparently, are trying to hint that in the Middle Ages in a two-handed battle was popular technique of "shortening on the elbow" - grab the blade in order to reduce the effort when applying a stabbing blow. Everything is so, if not for one “but”: the two-handed at that moment had a special compartment at the blade – ricasso – fenced, in turn, by the so-called “boar fangs” – small spikes that diverged to the sides and served as an ersatz guard for this area. However, Purfoy uses this technique for an ordinary sword. It is only incomprehensible how the glove was not ground: it, if not plated, serves to handle the palm without rubbing (otherwise you would have to endure extra calluses for a long time, and this is not the most pleasant feeling, I want to tell you), and not at all to turn caroling into an ersatz hammer.
Overall, the film is beautiful. I sincerely recommend watching. At least for the sake of charismatic performers of roles on both sides: actors play at a height.
10 out of 10
The Iron Knight 39 takes us back to the Middle Ages, to England, during the reign of one of the most unpopular kings - John the Landless. A little background tells us that the king became famous & #39 for his greed, cruelty and inability to govern. As a result, the English barons revolted against the monarch, and forced him to sign the Charter of Magnastics, which gave a large number of privileges to the upper and middle classes. At the same time, the document limited the power of the king on the throne.
The king did not accept his fate. Determined to restore unlimited power, he turned to the Pope for help. As a result, detachments of Danish mercenaries under the command of Captain Tiberius landed on the shores of Britain.
The events are transferred further to the castle of Baron Thornby, where the abbot and three Knights of the Templar Order arrived on a rainy night. The next day the king's troops came to the castle. On the orders of John Thornby, Abbot Marcus tries to intervene, but his tongue is cut off. One of the Templars manages to break through the castle, with the abbot dying in his arms. Having received the blessing, Thomas Marshall (the so-called Templar) goes to London, where the rebels against the king under the leadership of Baron Albany come to the conclusion that it is necessary at all costs to hold the castle of Rochester, which is a key road junction in southern England.
In fact, then begins the siege of the castle and the attempts of the Danes to break the resistance of a bunch of rebels. . .
As for the blunders. The main blunders are a significant discrepancy in the script of the film and in real historical events. For example, King John’s struggle with the barons did take place, as was the siege of Rochester himself. However, there was no long siege in sight, the defenders held for a little more than a week, the film gives the impression that it lasted about a year. In addition, the defenders were much more than 20 people. There were many other inaccuracies associated with the weapons of both defenders and attackers.
What didn't you like? A. S. Pushkin wrote: 'The fairy tale is a lie, but there is a hint in it. For the good of the class & #39; It is very difficult to find any wise ' Lesson' from the picture, given that the King is a despot, and the rebels are heroes. It turns out that the King of England cannot enter an English castle without the Baron’s permission. Even more absurd seems the idea of the overthrow of John and the accession to the English throne of the French (!) monarch. He will certainly take care of the British, with whom France has been at war for many years. Finally, the Knight of the Templar Order takes a vow of abstinence during his stay in the Order. Nevertheless, Thomas Marshall dared to break his vow by sleeping with the wife of the mayor of Rochester. Is this a good example of how to perform your duty and honor the charter of the organization of which you are a member?
However, all these omissions do not spoil the general impression.
I really liked the shot. Beautiful battle scenes. Everything is very detailed, beautiful, blood, sweat, tears. You can really see the real desperate struggle between the encircled and the attackers. Picturesque landscapes and a detailed medieval setting are also included in the asset of the film.
Conclusion: once to see exactly does not hurt.
Sometimes good movies come by chance.'The Iron Knight' just like that. This picture is well done, carved correctly. I have often noticed that European historical films are much higher and more interesting than Hollywood with their scope. A low budget doesn’t always mean a low-quality movie. Hollywood doesn’t always make movies that are interesting to watch.
' The Iron Knight' interesting to watch. The female half of the audience is attracted by the theme of forbidden love, the male half by bloody battles and an abundance of cut flesh. Rating from 16 years old is good.
The picture is good, but a masterpiece can not be called. She doesn't even claim that title. The actors played skillfully, only sometimes the obsession of the heroine Kate Mara caused slight irritation. Everything else is fine.
James Purfoy, in my opinion, is not a bad actor, but he has not yet managed to break into the big Hollywood movie. His hero, the Knight Templar, turned out to be quite truthful, gloomy, harsh, the kind of Templar who returned from the Crusades probably should be. No complaints.
The film lacks scope. There are no computer battles where thousands of troops march on one side and enemies on the other. There are no ingenious military devices or guns, like Greek fire, although perhaps the catapult at the time was considered such. There are no loud betrayals and tortured shivering screams 'Freedom!'
Nevertheless, I recommend watching the film. Of course, if you like historical dramas. But if you're waiting for a sweep 'Troy' - forget it's not here.
Despite the neutrality of my review, I will still make it positive, because I do not regret the time spent watching it.
Pros. Decorations, costumes, partly atmosphere.
Cons. The plot is extremely weak. Taken a story from life, which hung the devil knows what, turning everything into a masquerade of madness, pathos and bloody massacre. The English king, allegedly under pressure from the boyar, signed a treaty to limit his rights, but then decided to “get it back” by hiring an army of Danish mercenaries. The mercenaries, in turn, were bribed by some vague promise of papal favor. Together with the mercenaries, the king toured the castles, executing boyars who had offended him and thus seeking recognition of his power. It is clear that the boyars did not care about the poor strata of the population, so any pretentious words during the film about trampling rights and granting freedoms to citizens should be understood only in relation to the boyars themselves, and their struggle was a struggle only for their rights, for expanding their powers, and the corresponding restriction of royal rights. Of course, it was impossible to “sign” the broad masses of the people for such a struggle, and therefore the resistance detachment was formed from unproven mercenaries or free idiots, like the main character.
The main character. For the first half of the film, he walked with the same grimace on his face – a mixture of disgust, arrogance, madness and bulging eyes; over time, other facial expressions began to appear, often no less mysterious. GG’s motive for rebelling against the king is the biggest mystery in the film: if the boyars’ interests are more or less clear, then he had no benefits from the outcome of the confrontation at all; he was a member of the order with his vows and strict discipline, and could not get involved in domestic political battles; his business is the side. The motive of personal revenge is worked out for two, so it can not be taken into account. The story with GG began with the fact that he went to a certain monastery, where he had to renounce membership in the Order of the Templars and become a simple monk (that is, he had to break the oath given to him once; why? – history is silent). Following this violation in the course of the film, the knight repeatedly violated his other vows. To all this, for some reason, it was necessary to humiliate the character of GG, breaking him under the spell of an annoying but strange wife... At the very end, GG was “freed” by the cardinal from all his vows and, being a goal like a falcon, rushed with the beauty in an unknown direction, to the so-called “freedom”. As a result, the main character turned out to be a mixture of contradictions: while wielding a sword, he did not follow any of his principles (except for the prohibition to eat his horse), had no purpose in life, and had no meaningful future. It turned out the character in the classic performance “without the king in his head”. (With the latest shots, it occurred to me to think about the future fate of GG: here he is for the sake of food hired by a farmhand, weeding his sword beds, trying to feed his woman, who knows nothing in life.) . . ) .
The character of the woman turned out to be extremely disgusting and not romantic at all: mad in her lust she persistently and openly clung to the knight, inducing him in his house to adultery.
The rest of the characters fit these two, neither ideas nor principles. The king is just a jester: a shrill, insecure hysteria. Only one of them, the baron, had any sense of consistency.
Dialogue is bad. Sometimes there were phrases with notes of pathos, but in fact - with notes of brilliant stupidity.
A popular drawback is twitching shooting of battles. In this particular case, it was obvious that this was not the cursiveness of the operator, but an attempt in such a trivial way to create an additional effect of presence due to the small number of actors. For example, despite the fact that according to the plot, the castle was attacked allegedly by a thousand people, in reality they tried to drive no more than fifty people onto the wall, and there were twenty people at the same time on the wall itself. That is clearly a tangible shortage of "meat" for crowds.
Despite the many shots of the bloody scenes, the actual details were in fact few, because they all “glowed” for only a fraction of a second. From a common point of view, this is good, but from the point of view of meeting the modern requirements of cinema, it is weak. Probably, there was a lack of funding to qualitatively and in all its glory to show the cruel world of that time.
Conclusion. An extremely mediocre film to recommend for thoughtful viewing. The best thing about it is good decorations and costumes.
He was drawn to military-historical films. After watching the excellent 'Patriot', 'Braveheart', 'Troy' and the good 'Kingdom of Heaven', 'Robin Hood', 'Centurion' set to this 'masterpiece'.
Where to start. . .
The script is bad. Not like that. He's practically gone. There's just a bunch of people defending themselves in the fortress against an army. Namely, 20 people successfully repulsed several attacks of two thousand army. Just think about it. 20 people! Yes, attackers in the first attack at the worst end would crush them with meat. Also striking is the imagination of writers who consistently kill one minor character and in the end there are a couple of people. Each death is naturally accompanied by pathosy music and ardent speech of the hero. Personally, I thought that such stories have outlived themselves for a long time. Probably wrong.
Actors ... none. Just nothing. And at the head ' no ' stands the main character. He's so gray that yawning doesn't let go of the whole movie. He also lost his voice in the first half of the film. Paul Giamatti plays John the Landless. Really good actor, but not so much to pull the whole movie.
The costumes and scenery are good and I thought it was a medieval fortress. Not bad. Although the clothes were too clean, it was evident that they had just been worn. For example, in ' Robin Hood' Ridley Scott in this regard, the costumes were much better.
Music, camera work and editing do not lag behind the main character by an inch, do not stand out and do not deserve attention.
Funny observation: The sword of our valiant knight is so stupid that he takes the blade with his hand during the battle. But at the same time without problems breaks through the armor of enemies.
At the moment, this is the worst military-historical picture I have seen. I highly recommend going past this movie.
There is no virtue in taking someone's life. Even in the name of God.
Usually, paintings that are based on real events have little to do with the source. Only a couple of historical characters remain, the scene and the finale, everything else is left to the discretion of the screenwriter - let him puff off. Today’s guest is just a film claiming historical authenticity. So this is the Iron Knight.
The film tells the story of a group of Templars who refused to shed blood for the sake of God, and wander the world, accompanying an elderly monk. Their peaceful wanderings come to an end at the very moment when they stumble upon the former king of these lands, and at the same time his mercenaries, who are engaged in sowing chaos and death in the surrounding lands. It is time to take up the sword.
This work is rather a film based on the events of ancient times, rather than an excursion into history. Of course, many events were reflected in this film, but it was done more for the sake of entertainment than for the love of history. So what does this movie represent? Let's take a look.
In essence, this is a militant, taking place in the gloomy scenery of medieval Europe, the background of which boils down to the fact that the bloodthirsty and not quite sane king wants to regain his title and take away their liberties from the barons, and turn ordinary people into slaves. Against him there are several heroes, each of whom is worth a small army, just like seven samurai in knighthood. Against the background of these events, as is usual in such films, a love story will develop about a young girl who was forcibly married and a Templar who is forbidden to share his bed with a woman. But as we know, love and awareness of the imminent death overcome all obstacles and give such an incentive to live. Well, we wish lovers good luck and move on to the shortcomings of the picture.
There is only one flaw in this film, but it is quite significant. His name is the operator. During peaceful scenes, everything looks more or less good, the camera is static, but as soon as the knights come together in a fight not for life but for death, the camera begins to stagger from side to side and it becomes unclear what is happening on the screen. Given the fact that this is a film about knights who like to wave a checker, this is a significant drawback that can discourage people from knowing how the case will end.
As for the acting, even if the film does not play stars of the first magnitude, but those who starred in the “Iron Knight” are quite famous, and most importantly very successful actors who did not hit the dirt face and showed everything they are capable of.
So what's the end result? This is quite a good movie with a well-written script and excellent actors, both in the first and second roles, but unfortunately, the impression of the film spoils the camera, which does not allow you to enjoy the fights of the knights in full. However, I still recommend this movie for the simple reason that there are not so many good films in historical scenery.
6 out of 10
This phrase is repeated by the main character Squire before the first battle. This phrase can be called the motto of the whole picture.
The King, as befits many others, decided to act from a position of sole power and execute all those who dared by the Charter to limit his power. This is not the first case in history, although it is they that attract some attention. We, the people, love to look at kings!
Now let's go 'deep'film. One Templar named Marshal, at the head of a small detachment of soldiers, defends a key position, the surrender of which can lead to a deplorable result. The fact that this siege actually took place in history, makes it more interesting to watch the picture.
Shooting is more realistic nowhere, in all battles you want to go straight forward, the excitement of the battle is lit, its fervor is directly felt. Blood and severed limbs pond, swords do not dry with blood. Some people say it’s too much, but I’m in the position that a hard film needs it. It is necessary to feel the spirit of this moment, to live it yourself. And with this director Jonathan English coped with 'ura'.
Now let's talk about the cast.
James Purfoy was perfect for the role of a single leader. Yes, he didn’t need a spectrum of emotions on the screen, he played everything he needed by 5 points, I believed this character. A true Templar, though a little confused by the ease with which he renounced certain oaths to the Order. Thought... We're all human :)
I also liked the role and play of Brian Cox, the man who assembled this small group of daredevils. Baron, long retired from military affairs found the strength to take up the iron handle and defend the honor of the country.
King John (Paul Giamatti) is also unquestionably in tune with what is happening. A non-sympathetic man, a usurper and a tyrant, he played the antihero exactly as he should, focusing attention and empathy on ' positive' faces.
I've always been interested in history, the Middle Ages in particular. Beautiful shooting, the landscape of Wales, castles and costumes, swords and armor, all very authentic, albeit a little pathetic, conveys that era. Of course, I cannot call this film something outstanding either, but we have a solid middle peasant for lovers of sword ringing and horse snorting, who should like it.
There are two myths about medieval times. The first is a romantic image with knights in openwork armor, beautiful languid ladies and pastoral pictures of peaceful peasant life. The second is a gloomy image ' dark ages' with blazing bonfires of the obscurantist Inquisition, brutal murders, lustful and greedy knights, dirt and smelly mouth from everyone without exception. Actually, the film ' The Iron Knight' adheres to the second myth.
It's not that clear, of course. Despite the eerie dismemberment, there are many interesting and authentic moments in the film. But in general, as already noted, the film is gloomy, dark, full of vile horns and terrible murders.
Immediately it should be said that the real title of the film Ironclad, which can be translated as ' armored' or ' armored'. It all sounds ugly in Russian. But this title reflects the essence of the film. Therefore, it could be translated as 'Inaccessible'. Since here the allusion is not only to the main character (how quickly, though not quite true, the distributors realized), but also to the castle. In fact, armored in the film appears Rochester Castle, which, even destroyed, remained impregnable. On the other hand, it is the knight, the protagonist, who is dressed in armor. But this is not a direct allusion. The Knight Templar is a model of rigor, chastity, discipline and... isolation, loneliness, spiritual emptiness. While there is an assault on the castle, at the same time inside the castle there is an assault on the soul of the templeman by a beautiful baroness. And if the castle remains impregnable, the knight still flinched. And even though at the end it's him taking the beautiful lady on horseback, we know who seduced whom. In fact, this is the moral and universal meaning of the picture.
If we take the historical side, then of course everything was not so or quite so. The castle surrendered, but only one (and not Baron Albany) was executed. And the assault itself did not go as shown. But let's not cling to the little things. Overall, the canvas is correct. There is even a stunning historical hint, when one of the characters asks the main character the question: '. I think not many people have understood the hint, because not all people know that the Magna Carta was created mainly in favor of the barons of England, and not all ordinary people. From the historical point of view, the meaning of the picture boils down to an ancient dilemma: the power of the king (the state) is sacred, but can one then rebel against a bad king (the state)? The dilemma is still unresolved.
Another thing to note about the film is the colorful characters. Good mercenaries are expensive to see. I especially liked the criminal (Jededale, was that his name?). I immediately remembered Jacuy from ' Aliens', only if Jacuy is still a comedic character, then Jededale is a brutal maniac who bites off people's ears and beats the opponent's severed hand to death. However, the leader of the Dan mercenaries (Vladimir Kulich) is also very colorful. And the character of King John himself. Successfully turned out the image of such a despot, an insidious fool and also an internally lonely person. And there is a confrontation between the character of the king and the templeman (although the film more vividly shows the confrontation between the king and the Baron of Albany): the king is alone, because he fights only for himself, and the knight in the end ceased to be alone, because he fought for others.
In general, thanks to these colorful characters, the film managed to show the dualism that accompanied the people of the Middle Ages: cruelty and touching piety, harshness and humor, indifference and sensuality (this can be seen, for example, in the scene of one of the mercenaries saying goodbye to children). This transmission of the essence of the Middle Ages is somehow hidden in the film and may not be noticed by most viewers.
Before the beginning of the session, my mother sat next to me with a 7-8-year-old boy. Two minutes after the start, she realized that she had brought her son to this movie in vain and began to persuade him to leave. Five minutes later, she grabbed his hand and ran to the exit. In general, I think you understand: -). The film is not for children and sensitive people.
Fortress The theme of the siege of a single castle was revealed in this film richly and vividly, without the framework of censorship and glamorous brilliance. With a good casting, albeit not the star category, it is possible to deploy a good entertaining film about battles in the Middle Ages. A small detachment, led by a former Knight Templar, holds a small but strategically important fortress from the army of the king, who violated his own peace treaty with the support of the Vatican. Waiting for the army of the French, the main characters are forced to confront the best soldiers of the kingdom, the coolest mercenaries, fire catapults and completely other enemies in the spirit of hunger, panic and a decline in morale. Very strong and tough movie turned out even on a modest budget. Without the need to tell the epic story of the confrontation, all the funds went to a strong casting and technical design of the capture of the fortress and attempts to make this very capture. The beautiful choreography of fights and battle scenes is decorated at the same time with the absence of any censorship - blood gushes with streams, severed limbs fly in all directions, the high level of violence makes the whole film exactly what a spectacular historical film should be. In addition to bright types and meat spectacle, there will be a pinch of eroticism and a beautiful love story without excessive soaring in the clouds and pink snot. On the screen, only passion is given out, whether it is the thirst for justice, the madness of the ruling ruler or the feelings between a man and a woman - all at the highest level of emotions, in violently clashing bouquets of feelings. Paul Giamatti’s incredibly bright acting from a rather ridiculous and cowardly villain makes a bright madman with clear convictions in his excesses and bloody actions. James Purfoy not only waving his sword, but also the dilemma between this oath and true justice. Pretty Kate Mara appears as a fiery ray of hope and happiness. And the acting ensemble from Brian Cox, Jason Fleming, Anairin Barnard and some others - gives a set of diverse personalities involved in a colorful and cruel fight. Well, Vladimir Kulich showed himself the coolest - his brutal and uncompromising barbarian amazingly symbolizes the side of the antagonists. The monologues of the king cause delight, the combat patriotism of the main characters inspires, and a diverse look at the oaths from different sides of their effectiveness and necessity, gives semantic importance to the content of the picture, without becoming an unnecessary edifying burden and morality, but also in a thoughtless mess of video without turning. A great plot with well-written and played dialogue leads and keeps attention from beginning to end, causing a storm of positive emotions, feelings for the characters, and brings pleasure from viewing. And although some types do not get beyond the standard templates, individual characters die in packs, not having enough time to open up and be remembered, the cast does everything possible to embody charismatic images that cause specific feelings, from empathy and pity to approval or hatred. A really powerful and cool movie, without unnecessary scenes and unjustified delay. Properly calibrated and spectacularly presented by the director, it successfully pulls entirely into its surroundings and atmosphere, distracts from everyday life and shows a beautiful and strong history of the siege of the fortress. Everyone coped with a hurrah, giving out a bright genre sample, which you want to watch and review, admiring each time. Great historical guilty pleasure! 9/10 Original