While the first IRONCLAD was a solid medieval action movie, this sequel is essentially the same movie and, even more to it's detriment, is horribly shot and edited. Describing the plot is an easy task. Basically, replace King John's small army with a clan of Scottish raiders and you have this movie. The only connection between the two is a minor character, Guy, who is the main character in this sequel (but played by a different actor). Other than that, the plot plays out, beat for beat, almost exactly like its predecessor. And to top things off, it is worse in almost every department. The acting isn't as good as the first one and there aren't any big-name actors to elevate the material, but no one stuck out as being particularly horrible. Additionally, the violence and gore aren't completely practical this time, instead opting for CGI blood spatter and poor dummy work for the more graphic shots (e.g., beheading). There was also some fairly obvious green screen and CGI enhancements that were really distracting at times. However, the worst aspect of this film is the camera-work, which is mostly "shaky-cam." Hand-held camera during the dialogue scenes didn't really bother me, but the vigorous shaking of the camera during the action sequences was nauseating and made them extremely hard to follow. Still, there are a few aspects which aren't too bad. For one the score is appropriate to the material, even though a bit overblown. And even though the action scenes are rather poorly filmed, there are some good kills. They also attempt (with mixed results) to give the characters, including the villains, some depth. Overall, this film is a few steps down from the first in terms of quality across the board, some of it probably due to the reduced budget.
22 Reviews
your typical revenge movie
vampiri29 June 2014
Revenge Movies may very well be the most difficult to make interesting because there is not a lot of room for plot twists and other Movie tricks. And this is quite true for Ironclad: battle for blood.
Plot: the squire from Ironclad has grown up and has become a sword for hire. His cousin is under siege by a savage Scotsman who seeks revenge for the killing of his son. The besieged cousin seeks the help of his kin.
The plot is very weak, even for a revenge Movie. One reviewer thought that the dialog was corny and the acting dry. I won't argue against that view, though I find his/her vote (1/10) unfair.
True, the acting is not good but I have seen much much worse. The characters are shallow and uninteresting. The plot is, as mentioned, feeble. There is no "feeling" for the characters which I Think is one of the worst "enemies" of any Movie, if you can't create emotion for the hero, or any character for that matter, the Movie falls flat.
A Movie like this, i.e. relying much on action, a bit of "gore" (for example Braveheart) and a good villain, needs just that to create some degree of interest. It is here Ironclad: battle for blood fails, not in lack of plot or dialog, nor bad acting.
The positives about this Movie, although not strong, is the setting/surroundings, there are some good hack and slash scenes but not much more. The squire talks briefly about his exploits in France, which would have made a better Movie I Believe.
This Movie is truly one of those which are made just because the first one was successful, just to squeeze out those extra pennies.
Compared to other Movies in the genre (i.e. "sword and blood Movies"), Troy, Kingdom of Heaven and Centurion are much much better, it is somewhat worse than Season of the Witch, but equal to Warrior Queen.
The Movie is not good, but Worth 4 out of 10.
Plot: the squire from Ironclad has grown up and has become a sword for hire. His cousin is under siege by a savage Scotsman who seeks revenge for the killing of his son. The besieged cousin seeks the help of his kin.
The plot is very weak, even for a revenge Movie. One reviewer thought that the dialog was corny and the acting dry. I won't argue against that view, though I find his/her vote (1/10) unfair.
True, the acting is not good but I have seen much much worse. The characters are shallow and uninteresting. The plot is, as mentioned, feeble. There is no "feeling" for the characters which I Think is one of the worst "enemies" of any Movie, if you can't create emotion for the hero, or any character for that matter, the Movie falls flat.
A Movie like this, i.e. relying much on action, a bit of "gore" (for example Braveheart) and a good villain, needs just that to create some degree of interest. It is here Ironclad: battle for blood fails, not in lack of plot or dialog, nor bad acting.
The positives about this Movie, although not strong, is the setting/surroundings, there are some good hack and slash scenes but not much more. The squire talks briefly about his exploits in France, which would have made a better Movie I Believe.
This Movie is truly one of those which are made just because the first one was successful, just to squeeze out those extra pennies.
Compared to other Movies in the genre (i.e. "sword and blood Movies"), Troy, Kingdom of Heaven and Centurion are much much better, it is somewhat worse than Season of the Witch, but equal to Warrior Queen.
The Movie is not good, but Worth 4 out of 10.
Same? No!
kosmasp14 October 2014
This might (at this moment at least) have the same cover/picture as the previous "Ironclad" movie, but apart from the setting (middle ages) of course. Unfortunately and although this is trying, this never reaches any of the heights of the previous Ironclad. It's pretty much cliché after cliché thrown in and more than a little bit predictable. The fights are nicely done though.
There is also nudity and intercourse and love affairs that seem inappropriate. Maybe that makes it sound better than the movie is for some, but it really isn't. It's nicely (read gray and dark) shot, but that's about it. Not really worth your time, there are way better movies out there.
There is also nudity and intercourse and love affairs that seem inappropriate. Maybe that makes it sound better than the movie is for some, but it really isn't. It's nicely (read gray and dark) shot, but that's about it. Not really worth your time, there are way better movies out there.
OK Historical Romp that is big on the romping and very tiny indeed on the history.
t-dooley-69-38691623 May 2016
This is supposed to be Ironclad 2 and follow on from the siege of Rochester. Instead it is about some family of Norman descent privilege that have built a castle on the border land with Scotland. Then a vengeful Clan Chief leads his bunch of be-woded warriors to wreak revenge and do a lot of gurning.
The plot is that the young master – Hubert – has to go and get help from an estranged cousin who is a bit handy, as it were. This is Guy played rather well by Tom Austen. Then the action begins and to be fair there is plenty of action and it is mostly good.
However, there are some issues that could have been resolved and this would have been soo much better. For starters there is shaky cam during the action scenes and this is Richter scale 8 shaking, so a bit disappointing. Then the use of wode – I mean really this is supposed to be 1221. The spiral staircases in the castle go down on the left giving the advantage to the attacker – sack the architect immediately.
Then during the fight scenes which contain 'explosions' for added authenticity they have buckets of straw strategically placed to spread as much fire as possible inside the besieged castle. I could go on but I think that is enough. Most of the acting is good though and they actually manage to engender pathos in parts and I enjoyed 80% of it, but this is one that many will not want to bother with because of the aforementioned issues and a bit more beside – I won't bother if they make a turd – I mean a third one in this series.
The plot is that the young master – Hubert – has to go and get help from an estranged cousin who is a bit handy, as it were. This is Guy played rather well by Tom Austen. Then the action begins and to be fair there is plenty of action and it is mostly good.
However, there are some issues that could have been resolved and this would have been soo much better. For starters there is shaky cam during the action scenes and this is Richter scale 8 shaking, so a bit disappointing. Then the use of wode – I mean really this is supposed to be 1221. The spiral staircases in the castle go down on the left giving the advantage to the attacker – sack the architect immediately.
Then during the fight scenes which contain 'explosions' for added authenticity they have buckets of straw strategically placed to spread as much fire as possible inside the besieged castle. I could go on but I think that is enough. Most of the acting is good though and they actually manage to engender pathos in parts and I enjoyed 80% of it, but this is one that many will not want to bother with because of the aforementioned issues and a bit more beside – I won't bother if they make a turd – I mean a third one in this series.
Inferior Sequel
ksj8707 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The original Ironclad is one of the most underrated movies of 2011, and arguably one of the more unappreciated action films of all time. The sequel--Ironclad 2: Battle for Blood--tries to replicate the formula of its predecessor but fails in almost every regard. The plot still centers around an English castle under siege, but this time the attackers are a raiding party of Scottish rebels. Desperate to hold on to his ancestral home, the lord of the manor sends his young son out to find his cousin, Guy, an accomplished but disillusioned warrior who has forsaken the ideals of his youth and turned mercenary. Guy, along with a few other malcontents apparently chosen at random--including an obnoxious executioner and the female serial killer he was about to behead--follow the nobleman's son back to the castle, and the fighting begins in earnest.
It's a shame the final product isn't a better film, because there's nothing wrong with the basic plot (not much is more fun than a medieval siege!) and the cast is actually pretty impressive. Tom Austen is well cast as Guy, and plays the part with the requisite intensity, and fans of Game of Thrones will appreciate a solid (if limited) performance from Michelle Fairley as the lady of the castle. Roxanne McKee is excruciatingly beautiful as Guy's romantic interest, Blanche, and though her sheer attractiveness guarantees an elemental level of sympathy from us male viewers, her character doesn't really have any other admirable qualities. And that gets to one of the film's major flaws: almost none of the protagonists are the least bit sympathetic, as the best of them are extremely self-centered and the worst actually psychopathic. The only truly sympathetic characters are the nobleman's son and his youngest sister, but they are really only supporting characters. There appears to be a change of heart on the part of one of the main players near the end of the film, but the narrated epilogue which wraps up the picture seems to undercut this so that any imagined character growth is apparently short-lived. Moreover, too many illogical things happen for which there is no reasonable explanation. Characters make decisions for which there is no plausible motivation whatsoever, and the plot develops rather haphazardly from beginning to end. The film is extremely violent, and the many action scenes are the movie's saving grace, and the film is never boring, but even in terms of action the film sometimes disappoints. Many of the action scenes are badly directed, and their potential impact diluted by the infamous "shaky cam" technique. Finally, the film's low budget is a real problem. The original Ironclad only had a modest budget, but the sequel must have had a fraction of that. The opposing forces are absurdly motley, and the attacking Scots never seem like a credible threat to take the castle. There are some good atmospheric shots of wild, beautiful mountain tops and dark forests, but the director never manages to make the battle scenes come alive against this backdrop.
Overall, this simply isn't a worthy follow-up to the original Ironclad. There are a few good performances and the battle scenes keep the plot moving and intermittently entertaining, but ultimately the film is undone by a low budget, an implausible script, and weak characterization. You could do worse if you are in the mood for a little medieval action, but you could do a lot better, too...particularly by merely watching the first Ironclad again.
It's a shame the final product isn't a better film, because there's nothing wrong with the basic plot (not much is more fun than a medieval siege!) and the cast is actually pretty impressive. Tom Austen is well cast as Guy, and plays the part with the requisite intensity, and fans of Game of Thrones will appreciate a solid (if limited) performance from Michelle Fairley as the lady of the castle. Roxanne McKee is excruciatingly beautiful as Guy's romantic interest, Blanche, and though her sheer attractiveness guarantees an elemental level of sympathy from us male viewers, her character doesn't really have any other admirable qualities. And that gets to one of the film's major flaws: almost none of the protagonists are the least bit sympathetic, as the best of them are extremely self-centered and the worst actually psychopathic. The only truly sympathetic characters are the nobleman's son and his youngest sister, but they are really only supporting characters. There appears to be a change of heart on the part of one of the main players near the end of the film, but the narrated epilogue which wraps up the picture seems to undercut this so that any imagined character growth is apparently short-lived. Moreover, too many illogical things happen for which there is no reasonable explanation. Characters make decisions for which there is no plausible motivation whatsoever, and the plot develops rather haphazardly from beginning to end. The film is extremely violent, and the many action scenes are the movie's saving grace, and the film is never boring, but even in terms of action the film sometimes disappoints. Many of the action scenes are badly directed, and their potential impact diluted by the infamous "shaky cam" technique. Finally, the film's low budget is a real problem. The original Ironclad only had a modest budget, but the sequel must have had a fraction of that. The opposing forces are absurdly motley, and the attacking Scots never seem like a credible threat to take the castle. There are some good atmospheric shots of wild, beautiful mountain tops and dark forests, but the director never manages to make the battle scenes come alive against this backdrop.
Overall, this simply isn't a worthy follow-up to the original Ironclad. There are a few good performances and the battle scenes keep the plot moving and intermittently entertaining, but ultimately the film is undone by a low budget, an implausible script, and weak characterization. You could do worse if you are in the mood for a little medieval action, but you could do a lot better, too...particularly by merely watching the first Ironclad again.
UK Movie Makers Infected with Hollywood Disease
kmichaelpm22 June 2014
The last hope for the embattled movie-goer has been destroyed with the release of this so-called movie. British movies have up to now not been plagued by the Hollywood disease of bad directors, bad dialogue, bad acting, and use of the shaky camera for action scenes. Sadly, either the makers of this movie imported one of the useless crop of Hollywood directors or else they succumbed to the new Hollywood practices, which have seen the quality of Hollywood movies plunge. This movie is beyond bad. The acting is diabolical. The dialogue is criminally bad. The plot is all over the place. The sets are a joke and the massive overuse of the shaky cam for action scenes would actually make you dizzy. In fact in some scenes the shaky cam continues even when the action has stopped. I wonder if the producers even watched this rubbish before they released it. If they did, then they have no consciences. I strongly advise all sane movie goers to avoid this so called movie at all costs, and I sincerely hope that this is not the future of British movies.
What happened Johnny English .
ashwetherall129 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I really like the first Ironclad movie and even when I herd that Ironclad 2 wasn't a patch on the original I thought I'd give it a try. Why oh why did I bother. It's hard to believe that it has the same director. It seems that Jonathan English has taken out all the things that made the first Ironclad movie work so well and kept but amplified all the things that are really not worth remembering about the first film. He also manages to rip off other medieval films but without any of they're style this includes strangely the first Ironclad. As for the main cast, they're all pretty terrible which is a shame as I have seen them give better performances in other roles.
The one thing that still impresses are the action sequences which are well choir graphed but these are mostly ruined by the constant shaky camera work. The cgi effects are OK but some times they look like they've been lifted from the video game medieval total war.
To sum up why did they even bother to make this film. Jonathan English is a talented director but he seems to have really dropped the ball with this film. He seems to have forgotten what made the first ironclad movie work. Ironclad never needed a sequel. He should have made a movie about The battle of Hastings or Azincourt instead of ripping himself off.
The one thing that still impresses are the action sequences which are well choir graphed but these are mostly ruined by the constant shaky camera work. The cgi effects are OK but some times they look like they've been lifted from the video game medieval total war.
To sum up why did they even bother to make this film. Jonathan English is a talented director but he seems to have really dropped the ball with this film. He seems to have forgotten what made the first ironclad movie work. Ironclad never needed a sequel. He should have made a movie about The battle of Hastings or Azincourt instead of ripping himself off.
If You Like The Shaky Camera Movement In Films Today...
Rainey-Dawn6 May 2017
If you like the shaky camera movement in film today then you might like the cinematography of "Ironclad II", if it makes you nauseated to watch then pass on this film - the movie is full of shaky camera movement. I do NOT like the "let's shake the camera" cinematography.
Now, if the camera was still then I could have enjoyed this film a lot more. The story is OK, not grand but okay. Acting is alright while the costumes & sets are really nice but that's about it with this film.
This is NOTHING like the original film as far as quality. I know they were on a budget but why ruin the film with a shaky camera? This is why I'm NOT fond of today's films - nauseating camera movements.
I'm disappointed in this film - and I was looking forward to watching it but not with this shaky camera. Film makers: "Please stop with all the crappy shaky cameras - it's annoying! Copycatting this crappy style makes for a crappy film.".
3/10
Now, if the camera was still then I could have enjoyed this film a lot more. The story is OK, not grand but okay. Acting is alright while the costumes & sets are really nice but that's about it with this film.
This is NOTHING like the original film as far as quality. I know they were on a budget but why ruin the film with a shaky camera? This is why I'm NOT fond of today's films - nauseating camera movements.
I'm disappointed in this film - and I was looking forward to watching it but not with this shaky camera. Film makers: "Please stop with all the crappy shaky cameras - it's annoying! Copycatting this crappy style makes for a crappy film.".
3/10
Hmmm....
searchanddestroy-128 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I only remember that I liked the prequel, the previous film, back in 2011, except the ending for silly audiences. This film brings no more to the original, nothing at all. OK, it is full of bloody action, brutal sequences, for which I won't say they are gratuitous as far as the director claimed that he wanted a very realistic medieval film in the line of THE VIKINGS, WAR LORD, etc...But bloodbaths don't make everything. Besides that, the plot is more than familiar, no surprise at all, unlike WAR LORD, where for instance Charlton Heston's character was ambivalent at the most, and the poor peasant - he stole the wife from because the wedding and the lord's right of f...the bride - very interesting as the "bad guy" of the film...Yes, Franklin Schaffner's masterpiece was far far better than this one.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Here, good dudes kill the evil ones in the end. Period.
Not a waste of time, but you can live without it.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Here, good dudes kill the evil ones in the end. Period.
Not a waste of time, but you can live without it.
Ironclad 2
richardahickling8 August 2014
I purchased this on Blu-ray the other day. Watched it the first time round with friends (after a few drinks I have to say) and didn't enjoy it. I found the camera shots not great and the plot pointless.
However, after being a big fan of the 1st Ironclad, I gave number 2 a 2nd chance (no pun intended lol). Watching it the 2nd time round I enjoyed it a lot more than the first. Some dates mentioned were not accurate & many of the CGI scenes poor (as to be expected as number 2 did not have the budget number 1 had, hence it not being at the cinema, but going straight to DVD/Blu-ray), but overall not too bad as modern day medieval movies go.
6/10
However, after being a big fan of the 1st Ironclad, I gave number 2 a 2nd chance (no pun intended lol). Watching it the 2nd time round I enjoyed it a lot more than the first. Some dates mentioned were not accurate & many of the CGI scenes poor (as to be expected as number 2 did not have the budget number 1 had, hence it not being at the cinema, but going straight to DVD/Blu-ray), but overall not too bad as modern day medieval movies go.
6/10
No Game of Thrones to say the least
destroyerwod3 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Honestly i picked this up in a bargain bin at 2$. I got it cause Catelyn Stark was on the cover... Looks like there is also another minor character from game of thrones too. Also i like medieval movies so why not give it a shot? I never saw the first one...
Well.... this was a let down. The biggest problem is the shaky cam... holy cow does it ruin the fight scenes so bad. Its so shaky you can't see anything. Then when it comes to story, i really didn't like the character development they tried to do with some. It just felt off. For example the woman who was saved from death and then used as a mercenary kinda rape the "young lord" but thats it... there is nothing more like trying to establish love or whatever. And then she eventually go on and have sex with the main character's side kick and the young lord kinda feel sadness? Like what...? They kinda try to aim at a love interest but it never goes anywhere.
I could speak of the executioner character too which story arc goes nowhere. But the main focus of the movie is clearly fight scenes and with the shaky cam problems they are not enjoyable the least. Actually you kinda welcome the acting and story parts because of it.
Then the ending make no sense. First the Scottish guys seem like they are an endless hordes, when they looked mostly like a couple dozens at first when the movie start. They retreat 2 times after 2 fail attempts and loose many men, yet at the end they figure out they should try something different and they still seem to have dozens of soldiers. Then there is only the good guy left with the 2 women, so he challenge main bad guy to a 1 on 1 fight, seem cliché as the scotts have already won anyway, there many left for no good guys. And then after one of the woman intervene the Scottish guy get kill by a cheap shot and his soldiers pretty much just say oh well... you won, we out of here. Like what??? Its not even like it was established that that guy, the second in command, was against the decisions of his leader.
Oh and did i mention the castle had no arrows??? I mean, i dunno historically when arrows and bows where invented, but it does seem weird to see a castle defence without those. With bow and arrows they would had kill most of the attackers very quickly.
Anyway, i was a bit entertain by the movie at times, so its not a total failure, but the shaky cam is unforgivable, STOP USING SHAKY CAM DEAR DIRECTORS, nobody like it !!!
I feel like I'm VERY generous with a 5 out of 10
Well.... this was a let down. The biggest problem is the shaky cam... holy cow does it ruin the fight scenes so bad. Its so shaky you can't see anything. Then when it comes to story, i really didn't like the character development they tried to do with some. It just felt off. For example the woman who was saved from death and then used as a mercenary kinda rape the "young lord" but thats it... there is nothing more like trying to establish love or whatever. And then she eventually go on and have sex with the main character's side kick and the young lord kinda feel sadness? Like what...? They kinda try to aim at a love interest but it never goes anywhere.
I could speak of the executioner character too which story arc goes nowhere. But the main focus of the movie is clearly fight scenes and with the shaky cam problems they are not enjoyable the least. Actually you kinda welcome the acting and story parts because of it.
Then the ending make no sense. First the Scottish guys seem like they are an endless hordes, when they looked mostly like a couple dozens at first when the movie start. They retreat 2 times after 2 fail attempts and loose many men, yet at the end they figure out they should try something different and they still seem to have dozens of soldiers. Then there is only the good guy left with the 2 women, so he challenge main bad guy to a 1 on 1 fight, seem cliché as the scotts have already won anyway, there many left for no good guys. And then after one of the woman intervene the Scottish guy get kill by a cheap shot and his soldiers pretty much just say oh well... you won, we out of here. Like what??? Its not even like it was established that that guy, the second in command, was against the decisions of his leader.
Oh and did i mention the castle had no arrows??? I mean, i dunno historically when arrows and bows where invented, but it does seem weird to see a castle defence without those. With bow and arrows they would had kill most of the attackers very quickly.
Anyway, i was a bit entertain by the movie at times, so its not a total failure, but the shaky cam is unforgivable, STOP USING SHAKY CAM DEAR DIRECTORS, nobody like it !!!
I feel like I'm VERY generous with a 5 out of 10
Castle Combat and a good, basic entertainment movie
teslavate7 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
-- I am no professional reviewer by any definition, but I don't understand the low ratings this movie is getting. Of course this movie is no modern epic with a $100 million dollar budget, however for what it did cost I think they did a VERY good job. -- They did an excellent job of recreating a medieval village with the castle behind it to retreat into when attacked by Picts, Celts, Woads, or Brigands. They created a most believable little pocket of medieval times and I don't know about these other reviewers but I was able to thoroughly be fooled and fall into the story. I read some review that discredited the language used but this wasn't a history channel special, it's an escapist window into another world for entertainment and I think this movie does this very well. And if it forces the viewers to actually exercise their imagination a tiny bit so much the better. -- I think the movie allows us to suspend reality for a little while and go back into a more violent time and that is exactly what it is supposed to do. The costumes and make up are real looking and professionally done which adds to the success of the movie. The only thing I saw in this movie that wasn't totally realistic to the mind is some portions of the story where they had to perhaps not show in great detail for the sake of time. An example of this was the young Hubert's travel to find his cousin which is accomplished mainly by scenes of him riding a horse across ridge lines to the left and then when they return they go across the same country only to the right. This is acceptable because the movie would have to be 2 hours or longer if you fill every detail. -- However the story itself was believable to me. The young squire has matured into an experienced heavy combat specialist and in the process is now become deadened to life without the adrenaline rush of combat. Now living the life of a young man returned to his homeland and suffering from post combat stress reaction. He lives to get drunk, fight and wench. He is followed by his former combat partner, whose life he saved and who now follows him to pay this debt of honor. -- When he returns to the castle he finds it under siege by one or more Picti clans. I assume the castle is a real one and I was impressed that they showed one of the major weapons being used from the castle was dropping large rocks on the enemy and that when they began running short it was ordered that an unused old battlement be taken apart for more ammunition (realistic). Though the Picts using a piece of roman torsion artillery I am not sure about. It appeared to be an over sized Ballista and was throwing high velocity logs at the castles stone walls. I know the Romans had these and they fought the Picts along Hadrian's Wall so I suppose they could have acquired one or the plans for one. I was just a bit surprised by the hit power being attributed to the weapon in the movie and why it was not directed at the Castle gate. However those are minor issues and I only noted them because I work with weapons. -- As a whole I find that I liked this movie and I was disappointed by those who have given it such a low rating. I think this was a very good basic entertainment movie, being well worth the cost of rental, though had I watched it at theater prices I might not have been so impressed. I might even watch this movie again time permitting. I hope they make another sequel and get enough of a budget to do a complete and higher quality job. -- I gave the movie a rating of 8 just to off set these ridiculously low rating by what I can only imagine are overly picky reviewers or people who paid theater prices to see it. -- My first blush rating was a 5.5 to 6.0
A good portrayal of medieval times
thomas-446-1052688 July 2014
This is not a Hollywood movie, and if you are looking for pretty cgi, this is not for you.
While the first movie was slightly better, this movie is actually a very good attempt to portray what medieval times would have been like.
It does not try to be an action movie. Instead the deeper underlying message is one about the futility of war and the fragility of life.
I would only recommend this movie if you are into the whole medieval theme, but considering the budget they did a good job at trying to tell a story that is not just about sword-fights.
Its about men trying to live by honor and create a better future in times when civilization was but a vague concept.
If you can look past the low budget, this movie is a little gem. It does not try to be more then it is. It just tells events and how it affects the people involved in them.
You simply cannot compare this to large Hollywood productions, but it does a good job at portraying medieval times.
While the first movie was slightly better, this movie is actually a very good attempt to portray what medieval times would have been like.
It does not try to be an action movie. Instead the deeper underlying message is one about the futility of war and the fragility of life.
I would only recommend this movie if you are into the whole medieval theme, but considering the budget they did a good job at trying to tell a story that is not just about sword-fights.
Its about men trying to live by honor and create a better future in times when civilization was but a vague concept.
If you can look past the low budget, this movie is a little gem. It does not try to be more then it is. It just tells events and how it affects the people involved in them.
You simply cannot compare this to large Hollywood productions, but it does a good job at portraying medieval times.
Wish I hadn't wasted my time. Wish it had been better though.
Jamy9228 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I finished it. Not without fast forwarding through on my sky box on a few parts but I finished it. I never reviewed a film before but this was the straw that broke the camels back - I knew I had to save innocents from this abhorrent time sink.
It was a cold December 27th night that I saw this film coming on to Sky Premier a little later than I wanted to stay up, ergo I slapped it with a record and went peacefully to my bed. Come the afternoon of the following day I got a drink and sat down. I pressed play. Fool on me.
The film follows the typical savage Scots attacking the English lords in their keep. It doesn't particularly elaborate as to why except that the chieftain has suffered the loss of his family at the hands of SOME English. As such, he wants to kill all the English. Sounds legit. So begins an extensive siege that claims all but 4 lives in the end.
The acting wasn't bad. Don't misunderstand my 4/10, the acting wasn't bad at all. Nor was the setting. The fortress castle and the landscape were good and the script wasn't bad either ... at least for the English. Medevil England is a great historical period and worthy of films. This didn't do it justice.
The plot? The plot in itself was direly lacking any real direction outside of several characters developing. It was so similar to every other film of the period, and consisted of a small force assaulting a very small but fortified force; thats fine. Epic battles don't need to have thousands of people. Unfortunately for more than 100 minutes of time you get little reward from this film, seemingly made with the idea of 'lets get some actors from other things like Game of Thrones and have them play in this'. It's a film you look at and think "they must have made this over 2-3 evenings for a quick cash cow" because thats what it is. Unimaginative. Uninspiring. Boring and dull. You don't know if some characters will live and die; frankly you don't care. You know it's like most films like this where 2-5 people survive but you don't care who.
If you want to know if this is worth a watch then it depends how valuable your time is. If the alternative is sitting still staring into space then this film is for you! If you like taking walks or head butting a wall then your time is better spent on those things - they're more fulfilling!
It was a cold December 27th night that I saw this film coming on to Sky Premier a little later than I wanted to stay up, ergo I slapped it with a record and went peacefully to my bed. Come the afternoon of the following day I got a drink and sat down. I pressed play. Fool on me.
The film follows the typical savage Scots attacking the English lords in their keep. It doesn't particularly elaborate as to why except that the chieftain has suffered the loss of his family at the hands of SOME English. As such, he wants to kill all the English. Sounds legit. So begins an extensive siege that claims all but 4 lives in the end.
The acting wasn't bad. Don't misunderstand my 4/10, the acting wasn't bad at all. Nor was the setting. The fortress castle and the landscape were good and the script wasn't bad either ... at least for the English. Medevil England is a great historical period and worthy of films. This didn't do it justice.
The plot? The plot in itself was direly lacking any real direction outside of several characters developing. It was so similar to every other film of the period, and consisted of a small force assaulting a very small but fortified force; thats fine. Epic battles don't need to have thousands of people. Unfortunately for more than 100 minutes of time you get little reward from this film, seemingly made with the idea of 'lets get some actors from other things like Game of Thrones and have them play in this'. It's a film you look at and think "they must have made this over 2-3 evenings for a quick cash cow" because thats what it is. Unimaginative. Uninspiring. Boring and dull. You don't know if some characters will live and die; frankly you don't care. You know it's like most films like this where 2-5 people survive but you don't care who.
If you want to know if this is worth a watch then it depends how valuable your time is. If the alternative is sitting still staring into space then this film is for you! If you like taking walks or head butting a wall then your time is better spent on those things - they're more fulfilling!
Really Bad
amgee-8955130 July 2018
Rubbish
stephensims5317 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I watched half the film then I had to switch it off. I was looking foreword to watching this movie yet by the time I switched off I was very very disappointed. I enjoyed the first Ironclad even though there was some things I thought were not as they should be eg If I was having my hands and feet chopped off I think I would be screaming a lot longer and not just minimally moaning.. and with number 2 I don't know what film some of the other reviewers were watching but I found the fight scenes very stilted and unbelievable.. Rubbish Story, Rubbish acting, Rubbish hero and villain, Rubbish fight scenes.. How did they get the money to make this waste of film?
The camera action was horrible. To much shaking
kayeplan10 March 2020
A poor follow-up
freemantle_uk24 October 2021
Ironclad was a guilty pleasure type film. It was faulted but the filmmakers had some ambition and they wanted to make a fun film. Battle for Blood was pretty much a straight-to-DVD sequel. It had the same plot points as the original but had a fraction of the budget. The action was a massive downgrade but it lacked the scale and gore of the first and the filmmakers had to use even more shaky cam. It looked cheaper because of the bad green screen and unconvincing-looking weapons. The acting also suffered because it didn't have the OTT pantomime style of the first and even actors I liked such as Rosie Day disappointed. This shows medieval films need some sort of a budget.
Nothing terrible but like most sequels it seems to diminish what was likable about the original.
cosmo_tiger30 June 2014
"There's always men whose honor can be bought." When a man looking for revenge for the death of his son during the siege of Rochester Castle begins to plot his attack Hubert (Harries) sets out to find his cousin Guy (Austen) for help. What he hopes to find is someone with the same passion for protecting his land that he does, but what he finds is a war hardened mercenary who is only interested in money. When Guy returns to the castle old feeling begin to come back and he must control his emotions as well as fight off the attacking Celts. I have never been a big fan of these mid-evil type movies. I did like the first Ironclad though (mainly because I love Paul Giamitti) but was still a little leery about watching this one. This one, like most sequels, isn't as good as the first one. This one never seemed to fall into what it wanted to me. The movie starts off very violent and graphic, then becomes a revenge movie and finally a story about a man trying to reconnect with himself and his past life. Action fans will like this because there is a lot of fighting and blood (sometimes over the top though) but if you are looking for a complete movie with plot and a story to keep you interested then look elsewhere. Overall, nothing terrible but like most sequels it seems to diminish what was likable about the original. I give this a C+.
Has Potential, Failed to Impress
malmulla-9479928 June 2023
Ironclad.. I remember watching the 1st Movie, and I Loved it.. the struggle and the Loyalty to the Cause and the Promise Given..
The 2nd Movie.. Oh well, was a Real Disappointment, as it hardly has solid Material..
It Tried to Use the Name Guy the Square, which Appeared in Ironcald 1, In Order to Nourish the Story and make those Followers of the Story more Attrached to it, however, it was Not a Sustitution for "James Purefoy" who played as "Marshall" in the first movie and His Act was Superb and Made anyone who watched the Movie get so Attached to the Character..
The Sword Fights are a collection of Camera Jumbles without Focus on a Certain Scene.. and The Rest of the Characters are Sort of Just Trying to Build Certain Characterstics in an Absolutly Boring way.. The most Character that I really Enjoyed and Cheered for was Berenger, but Sort of Expected he would be the escapegoat to Make the Movie.... more Touching... and More About Standing for the Promise and the Dept.. yet.. Again, It just Did not click..
One this I Noticed in the Fight Scenes, which is the Absence of ANY BOWs in the Entire Fights.. English Bows were Knows for being one of the Longest Range Bows due to their Length, However, it seemed that the Soldiers just.. Didn't have any.. Not Sticks to Push of the Ladders of the Attachers.. or Hot Oil to Pour it on the Climbers.. They were Like.. Waiting for the Enemies to Climb and then Start Hacking the Wacking at them..
The Sword Fights are a collection of Camera Jumbles without Focus on a Certain Scene.. and The Rest of the Characters are Sort of Just Trying to Build Certain Characterstics in an Absolutly Boring way.. The most Character that I really Enjoyed and Cheered for was Berenger, but Sort of Expected he would be the escapegoat to Make the Movie.... more Touching... and More About Standing for the Promise and the Dept.. yet.. Again, It just Did not click..
One this I Noticed in the Fight Scenes, which is the Absence of ANY BOWs in the Entire Fights.. English Bows were Knows for being one of the Longest Range Bows due to their Length, However, it seemed that the Soldiers just.. Didn't have any.. Not Sticks to Push of the Ladders of the Attachers.. or Hot Oil to Pour it on the Climbers.. They were Like.. Waiting for the Enemies to Climb and then Start Hacking the Wacking at them..
Not as good as the first one... But fun none the less
jcpierre9628 August 2017
The first Ironclad was not to be taken too seriously, historically speaking, but still had interesting details, and the no-nonsense characteristics of the fights made the film overall quite well-made.
This sequel is far from being as good as the first one, regarding the cast, the dialogues, the cinematography (shaky camera shots tend to be overused)... But it still is fun, and never gets dull.
It's full of medieval clichés: daily public beheading, dark monasteries, dirty brothels and taverns, and so on, and so forth. Also, the historical side is thrown out of the window altogether.
The one-liners are cheesy, the fights violent, and the jokes overly "saucy". It's not badly made, especially concerning the atmosphere. If you liked the first one, give it a go! Don't expect a masterpiece, though. Also, some scenes are not for the faint of heart.
This sequel is far from being as good as the first one, regarding the cast, the dialogues, the cinematography (shaky camera shots tend to be overused)... But it still is fun, and never gets dull.
It's full of medieval clichés: daily public beheading, dark monasteries, dirty brothels and taverns, and so on, and so forth. Also, the historical side is thrown out of the window altogether.
The one-liners are cheesy, the fights violent, and the jokes overly "saucy". It's not badly made, especially concerning the atmosphere. If you liked the first one, give it a go! Don't expect a masterpiece, though. Also, some scenes are not for the faint of heart.
Aside a poor production this movie is much relevant how should be the clash between the mortal enemies English & Scottish!!
elo-equipamentos6 April 2021
Despite all poor production, amateurish fakes sets, due tight budge, this movie has a great quality, it somehow portraits in an overwhelming way the bloody dark ages that ripped across the British island (also on the Europe neither) for a long time, docked on feudal system where the strongest ones suppress those weakest, when it concerning about mortal enemies like English and Scottish over their borderline territory it became in an unpreventable butchery at those period of times.
For centuries on end they fight each other and until now they never reach in a fair agreement, just condone each other, this picture displays the nakedly and crude this grudge still smoldering, thus we can not judge the movie so hardly, shot on breathtaking landscape at Serbia, the British lead casting as usually to improve a lot, also to open the door of profitable European market on even on worldwide.
Sadly on Blu-Ray we can see the smallest details everywhere, what it shows so startling shoddy sets, fake stones, sawn wood on machine and so on, so minor details that are easy rated by the mindful viewers, also the director implied an awkward moving camera, often jarring and so fasting changing between the takes, imposing a frenzy edition, unusual to conceal and almost blinded the audience whatsoever, moreover the storyline is enough interesting, plenty of sexy scenes and a bit underrated by IMDB's users!!
Thanks for reading.
Resume:
First watch: 2021 / How many: 1 / Source: Blu-Ray / Rating: 6.5.
For centuries on end they fight each other and until now they never reach in a fair agreement, just condone each other, this picture displays the nakedly and crude this grudge still smoldering, thus we can not judge the movie so hardly, shot on breathtaking landscape at Serbia, the British lead casting as usually to improve a lot, also to open the door of profitable European market on even on worldwide.
Sadly on Blu-Ray we can see the smallest details everywhere, what it shows so startling shoddy sets, fake stones, sawn wood on machine and so on, so minor details that are easy rated by the mindful viewers, also the director implied an awkward moving camera, often jarring and so fasting changing between the takes, imposing a frenzy edition, unusual to conceal and almost blinded the audience whatsoever, moreover the storyline is enough interesting, plenty of sexy scenes and a bit underrated by IMDB's users!!
Thanks for reading.
Resume:
First watch: 2021 / How many: 1 / Source: Blu-Ray / Rating: 6.5.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
