Release Date (UK) – 4th March 2011
Certificate (UK) – 18
Country – UK
Runtime – 121 mins
Director – Jonathan English
Starring – James Purefoy, Paul Giamatti, Brian Cox
It’s taken the British film industry a long time to banish the muddy imagery of Monty Python And The Holy Grail from memory before reapproaching the medieval swords and sandals genre, which comes as a surprise regarding the current movie climate’s apparent urgency for swashbuckling melodrama. James Purefoy, star of last years similarly blood and mud soaked medieval actioner Soloman Kane and HBO’s Rome lends his suitably charcoal growl to Jonathan English’s bloody retelling of the Battle of Rochester Castle in 1215, a pivotal event in the demise of the rulership of King John.
Purefoy (a sort of grizzled mixture of Gerard Butler and Viggo Mortenseno) plays Marshall, a Templar Knight who on the brink of completing his service witnesses first hand the treaty defying tyranny of King John (a scenery crunching Paul Giamatti) and holds up in the strategically pivotal Rochester Castle with a band of sword happy rebels including Brian Cox’s noble Baron Albany, Jason Flemying’s axe welding Beckett and Jamie Foreman’s cackling criminal, Coteral. With the aid of a disposable Dutch army comprised of hairy Charles Manson look-alikes, the King attempts to sack the seemingly vulnerable defences of the castle and slaughter the tiny party of resistance inside.
The disposal cast of standard Brit faces (mainly distinguished by their type of battlefield weapon) don’t rear too far from stereotypes and the romantic involvement of Kate Mara’s baroness Isabel with the conflicted Marshall is merely deadweight on a story that doesn’t cry out for any extra dimensions. Purefoy once again proves he has the calibre to carry a film confidently, his approach more likened to the growling, rugged action stars of yesterday than the soft, method acting leads of today. Unsuprisingly, its Giamatti’s attention robbing presence that provides the film with the slanted dramatic focus, shared by the Bond films where OO7 would be awkwardly out acted by whoever played the villain.
English’s film will never break from solid Saturday night entertainment mould, but when it comes to directing the film’s staggeringly authentic battle scenes he will be an auteur sought after for many a Narnia and 300 sequel. The film’s combat is an appropriately blood thirsty cycle of hacking, slashing and bludgeoning all played out in thick mud and gushing rain; almost like a Glastonbury mosh pit. Refusing to leave much to the audience’s imagination, English dunks us right in the centre of the conflict as blades lurch in and out of focus and claret splatters like the result of a grenade tossed into the canned spaghetti aisle at a supermarket. Themes of socialism as an alternative to sovereign rule are hovered over and never probed, but criticising a film that’s tagline reads ‘Blood. Will. Flow.’ for it’s lack of depth could be somewhat futile.
Purefoy’s strong leadership against Giamatti’s cement handed villainy has enough edge and seriousness to prevent this from ever sliding into campness and the brutally exhilarating battle sequences demand attention in a way that a standard Hollywood telling probably would deny (the film credits 18 executive producers, making it the largest independent production of 2010) making it solid yet shallow popcorn fare. Jonathan English however is notably a name to watch, his skill at balancing budget, style and fearlessly brutal action will surely make him desirable property in years to come.
Related posts:
I looked forward to seeing this film as I live not far from Rochester and saw Rory McGrath’s Bloody Britian series which had a programme about the seige itself. To my horror I found out it isn’t just Hollywood re-writing British history but ourselves as well now. The only historical fact right was who led the rebellion and how King John finally broke into the keep. It’s no wonder children of today have no sense of real history if they get it from the cinema.
I looked forward to seeing this film as I live about 1km as the crow flies from the main film set. And would like to see how it performed for its first movie.
This movie is total nonsense.
The historical errors are both glaring and laughable.
This is not only rubbish from a historical point of view; it’s also rubbish from a filmic point of view. It looks as though the makers read the Wikipedia entry on the siege of Rochester then strung together a plot of sorts using the most tired old filmic tropes they could lay their hands on. Gallant defence against great odds by a tiny band of misfits, as in The Magnificent Seven or Seven Samurai? Tick (except that in those films there’s a reason why it’s only a tiny band of mistfits, but here it’s nonsensical). Old comrades get together for One Last Mission? Tick. Hero goes over the wall without a word to anyone, everyone thinks he’s deserting but no, he has gone to steal supplies from the enemy? Tick. The idealistic young lad is told “kill the women if the baddies get in” but can’t bring himself to do it? Tick. Yawn, yawn, yawn. You don’t give a stuff about any of the characters, mainly because you don’t for a moment believe in them. It’s pure cartoon – but because the makers thought they were making a “gritty” “realistic” film, it’s a dull sludge-coloured cartoon. (The colour is so washed out it looks like a badly-degraded old print in need of restoration.)
I’ve not seen the film yet but am looking forward to it based on it’s merits (described by ‘movie’ reviews from IMDB). The first pertinent fact is that this is a movie, not a documentary, if I wanted a historically accurate account of the siege of Rochester Castle I would program my plus box to record a sleep inducing documentary on the History channel. This is British film using a ‘theme’ to stage a hack and slash medieval movie set in Rochester, the reviews far and wide across the Internet praise this movie for it’s balancing of budget against action and realism and for us typical movie goers that’s more then sufficient for a bit of Saturday night popcorn fun.
So if your looking for Shakespearian character development accompanied by an historically accurate lesson on medieval England then your probably better of taking your notepad to a channel that serves docudrama, if your after some medieval hack and slash fun with solid acting then this movie, according to the vast majority of critics, is worth a watch (and you’ll also be supporting British filmmakers, which is always a good thing).
The trailer looked good to me.
Id like to know wher i can see the film, as there is no reference to any cinema showing dates and times anywhere in the net yet it has supposed to have been on some form of release since March! certainly noy in Yorkshire it hasn’t, and there does not seem to be any sign of it being shown up here either! So if anybody can enlighten me i would be most grateful!!
the disposable army is danish, not dutch.
What a load of negative reviews!
One of the best “INDEPENDANT” films I’ve seen in years!
The acting is spot on and support acting is really tight and keeps the film fully together! The actual plot keeps the audience reeling in their seats! The fight scenes kick ass! The gore…well, where does it ever end in this film?
They did the very best they could on that budget! The production and sets looked amazing!!! And for people who complain about the historic content not being up to scratch….it’s a MEDIEVAL WAR FILM! get over it! Honestly worth it!
A*****