Ironclad Full Movie In Hindi Free Download Mp4

Ironclad Full Movie In Hindi Free Download Mp4

King John Lackland reneges in 1215, the year the barons force him to sign to Magna Carta, on its parliamentary terms to resume his tyrannical misrule, and raised an army of pagan mercenaries to smash those barons who dare resist again. William d'Aubigny's warrior band, including knight Templar Thomas Marshal and his squire Guy, decides to make a stand in Rochester, a strategic castle to bar the road to London, so they force its lord, baron Reginald de Cornhill, to side with them after eliminating the Danish watchdogs. Captain Tiberius's mercenary band fails for months to make their numeric superiority count during a bloody siege, over which John presides personally, eager to take the castle before French and/or domestic rebel reinforcements may arrive. Baron Reginald's wife Isabel regrets their arranged marriage, enough to nearly-openly lust for handsome crusade veteran Thomas, who however takes his order vows seriously.
It is the year 1215 and the rebel barons of England have forced their despised King John to put his royal seal to the Magna Carta, a noble, seminal document that upheld the rights of free-men. Yet within months of pledging himself to the great charter, the King reneged on his word and assembled a mercenary army on the south coast of England with the intention of bringing the barons and the country back under his tyrannical rule. Barring his way stood the mighty Rochester castle, a place that would become the symbol of the rebel's momentous struggle for justice and freedom.
Well..let me be straightforward and tell it from the beginning: i like this movie. Maybe because Scott&#39;s Robin Hood was disappointing. Maybe because the team behind was bold enough to try making an indie movie able to play in the big league. Maybe because they had the good idea to bring several actors from the British School (both theater and movie). Maybe because they had the good idea to end the old tradition and depict war as gruesome as it is. No guts no glory.<br/><br/>Several damaging issues might count for the missing 3 stars in my vote (7/10) - the shaky camera - too simple screenplay - the crumbling castle (really people...was not there any better idea to &quot;allow&quot; the danish mercs entering the castle than a herd of pigs put on fire? ) - Speaking about the Danish Mercs. Why were they speaking modern Magyar? Was this movie supposed to be played only in US ? If an medieval Norse speaking consultant might be hard to be found i would expect finding few modern Danish speakers to make the voice overs. Should&#39;t be that expensive. By the way, the Magyar language is related somehow with the Finish language but no way with any Scandinavian languages (Norse, Swedish, Danish)
Why does the terrible re-write of history - especially at the end - matter here? There are a number of wonderful stories surrounding the Siege of Rochester: the Magna Carta, the cruelty of King John (and his occasional brilliance as a general), the story of William Marshal(look him up!), the decade long running battle between John&#39;s supporters, the rebels, the French. And there is even a dramatic story involved in the Siege of Rochester.<br/><br/>Unfortunately that&#39;s not the story the makers of this film have decided to tell. The real story of Rochester is that those involved were doomed men in a losing cause. Anyone who has seen the Wild Bunch or the German film Stalingrad will know that such a story can make a great action film, or a powerfully dramatic (if depressing) meditation on the futility of collective violence. But the makers of this film don&#39;t care about any of that. Indeed, they relish violence - the whole point of this film seems to be to try to find new ways to depict dismemberment. The effort failed; the trouble is, there is no poetry to it, no grace, no art. It is just dismemberment, and we&#39;ve seen it all before.<br/><br/>The occasional effort to express some comment on religion, or politics, or even just human relationships tends to fall flat. Just for instance, the historical period doesn&#39;t offer much - the &#39;freedom&#39; sought by the rebellious barons meant entirely freedom for them, not &#39;the people.&#39; That it eventually led to the establishment of the rule of law was virtually accidental.<br/><br/>Finally it has to be said that most of the characters are neither likable nor interesting - especially the defenders of the doomed castle (and that certainly shouldn&#39;t be the case!).<br/><br/>The filmmakers seem to be asking, &#39;can we make a Ridley Scott epic without Ridley Scott (or the resources he has available)?&#39; Apparently not. Scott&#39;s best movies have strong stories to tell, strongly told. I lost real interest in this after the first half hour, zipped through to the end to see if they would tell the real story of the Siege. Also apparently not.<br/><br/>I bought this used, cheap, hoping for a decent action film to while away a Saturday afternoon. I had to fast-forward through an awful lot of meaningless posturing. Final judgment: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
By making John such an unrepentant freedom-opposing monster, Ironclad denies itself any moral thorniness.
a5c7b9f00b