This film tackles a genuine historical event, offering entertainment while sacrificing accuracy. In 1215, during the First Barons' War—a period following a revolt and the Magna Carta’s signing—King John of England found himself laying siege to Rochester Castle, a strategically vital location that had been seized by barons rebelling against him. The movie attempts to depict this siege and craft an engaging narrative around it. As this is a fairly well-known historical event (particularly for those familiar with English history), I don’t believe revealing some of what occurred at the time constitutes a spoiler. Naturally, this isn't intended as a documentary, but in my view, greater adherence to historical detail would have improved it. Despite evident effort, the film takes liberties with its portrayal of the events. It is accurate that the siege of Rochester was significant within the war and that the castle’s defenders were outnumbered. However, the siege actually lasted only weeks, while the movie implies a much longer duration. The film shows the castle being targeted by a mine—a factually correct detail—but it omits the earlier demolition of the outer wall by the king's troops, and notably glosses over the implausible act of burning pigs alive. Furthermore, the film presents Rochester as isolated on a plain, whereas in reality, it was already a substantial city with a cathedral that was unfortunately looted and used as stables by John’s soldiers. Following the siege, numerous people survived, including William d’Aubigny; while they faced punishment, there's no evidence King John ordered their massacre. I also have reservations about the depiction of the Templars—though they were active in England, I haven’t found any proof of their involvement in this conflict, and certainly not dressed as shown on screen. I think I’ve managed to point out some discrepancies between what actually happened and how it's presented without giving away crucial plot points. The film’s strongest asset is its action choreography. Despite the lack of realism, the fight sequences are impressive enough to make the movie exciting, delivering exactly what fans of the genre desire: the combat looks powerful, with sword blows having a dramatic impact. The catapult attack also has appeal, even if the projectiles resemble explosive artillery rounds—an absurdity from a historical perspective. The cinematography is well-executed, and the props, costumes, and sets are adequate, though not historically accurate. The soundtrack complements the film nicely, creating an understated but epic atmosphere. At times, it evoked comparisons to “300,” although thankfully, the characters here don’t resort to fighting in their underwear. Paul Giamatti delivers a remarkable performance as a treacherous and sadistic King John, another significant strength of this film. I've always admired Giamatti’s talent, and despite portraying a character deserving of condemnation, he does so with considerable flair, avoiding the trap of overacting or reducing the character to a senseless killing machine. James Purefoy and Brian Cox attempt to match his level of performance, and at least Cox succeeds. Purefoy's efforts fell short; his character feels like a lone vigilante—a “Batman” on horseback who arrives just in time to save the day when all seems lost. Kate Mara embodies the stereotypical bored damsel, destined for a predictable romantic entanglement with one of the heroes. Derek Jacobi tries his best, but his role lacks substance.

Source on TMDB