NOTE IMDb
4,3/10
3,2 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA survivor of the Great Siege of Rochester Castle fights to save his clan from Celtic raiders. A sequel to the 2011 film, "Ironclad."A survivor of the Great Siege of Rochester Castle fights to save his clan from Celtic raiders. A sequel to the 2011 film, "Ironclad."A survivor of the Great Siege of Rochester Castle fights to save his clan from Celtic raiders. A sequel to the 2011 film, "Ironclad."
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Zorana Becic Djordjevic
- Vyla
- (as Zorana Becic)
Avis à la une
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
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.
Very unnecessary sequel with bad acting and bad cgi. The characters was all annoying. The first film was way better in my opinion. I don't recommend this film.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesMovie opens with Italian recap left off from Ironclad (2011). Roughly translated: Five years after the siege of Rochester Castle and the sedition of the rebellion against the King. The England is at peace, but to the country's contentions they raging conflicts. The Scottish clans, the loss of their lands and the race, they attack English castles and villages places on the borders. Without being able to rely on the help from the Crown, the English lords are left alone to defend their possessions and must avail themselves of the aid of every man to be found, even the weak, the humble and how many are willing to fight for little change.
- GaffesIn the epilogue, Hubert states that his cousin Guy later went on to fight in the Hundred Years War. This would not have been possible because the film is set in the year 1221, but the Hundred Years War took place between 1337 and 1453. Guy could not have taken part in those wars unless he lived to be over 140. In addition, the term Hundred Years War was first used by 19th century historians.
- Citations
Pierrepoint: [During a lull in battle] You and your friend, it's good to see people happy at their work.
Guy the Squire: We've had a lot of practice.
- ConnexionsFollows Le Sang des Templiers (2011)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Ironclad: Battle for Blood?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Ironclad 2: Battle for Blood
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 115 791 $US
- Durée
- 1h 48min(108 min)
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant