Ironclad Movie In Tamil Dubbed Download

********************
Ironclad Movie In Tamil Dubbed Download
http://urllio.com/qz7b3
(Copy & Paste link)
********************































In 13th-century England, a Knights Templar and few of the Barons men, fight to defend Rochester Castle against the tyrannical King John.
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.
I realize that this film is rather inaccurate, to say the least. But it does follow the general back story and future of John&#39;s reign and demise, although the episode dealing with Rochester Castle is wholly fictitious. John did retake Rochester, but not from a force of 20 men. He took it in one of the most brilliantly executed sieges of the medieval era. But his victory was indeed short lived, and the French did land, but not as portrayed in this film. John went on to plague England for another considerable while. He did lose his crown jewels somewhere, and he did die of dysentery (ick!).<br/><br/>Anyway, the film is well acted, especially by Paul Giamatti. The battle scenes were well done, and plenty gory, as was probably the case historically.<br/><br/>My only problem with this film is the subplot of Templar angst and the annoying Isabella character. There are few things more annoying than some horny slut hanging around a guy when he&#39;s got serious business to tend to, saving people&#39;s lives and freedoms. <br/><br/>It&#39;s silly that our society is so obsessed with sex as the fulfillment of all of life&#39;s meaning that they can&#39;t stand to let any vow of celibacy stand throughout a motion picture. <br/><br/>I would have told Izzy to get lost and go back to her husband. She wasn&#39;t that great anyway. The girl that Beckett was shacked up with was much more appealing. <br/><br/>Anyway, what&#39;s so intolerable about a vow of celibacy, anyway? It simplifies so many things. Women can be such a bloody pain, and Izzy was a prime example of one who is! We don&#39;t need to force modern feminism and psychological paradigms into medieval settings to make a story relevant. The story is relevant on its own merit, because it touches on a piece of important history. The Magna Charta had nothing to do with anyone&#39;s right to break vows of celibacy or the right to commit adultery. It was about people&#39;s right to live prosperous, moral, decent lives with out being harassed and abused by tyrants like John.<br/><br/>Of course, since we have lost sight of any such goals in our own decadent, morally bankrupt modern society, we can&#39;t tolerate a story that sticks to those themes.<br/><br/>Believe it or not, people did live meaningful lives before feminism, modern psycho-babel, and existential angst came along to complicate everything unnecessarily.<br/><br/>Otherwise, this was a real kick-ass film!
There are a few good things about this film. One is that it captures a beautiful scenery, from the countryside to inside the castles. Also the people look surprisingly authentic for around 12-1300 AD. What I mean is that they really look dirty, not just the beggars on the street. Other than that it has nothing to brag about.<br/><br/>The movie is filled with stars, but it only leaves you puzzled as to why the performances aren&#39;t better. The reason for that though is simple. The script is awful. The main story in itself is interesting, but the dialog and the characters are really terrible. Everything is flat and uninteresting. The only thing that stands out might be Paul Giamatti, and maybe Brian Cox who usually does his job. James Purefoy is on autopilot unfortunately. <br/><br/>The movie is very violent which entertains you for a little while, but you soon get bored with that as well. To much of the same. The film is also 30 minutes to long.
Casting is almost uniformly first rate with Cox, Purefoy and the always brilliant Giamatti providing noteworthy standouts.
  a5c7b9f00b