User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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.

With regard to the storyline it was acceptably entertaining. I wish there was better editing with the fight scenes and more steady filmography throughout

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 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.

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.

Tom Austin could play Sean Connery if they ever made a biography of him. Then there was brutish looking thug who saves the girl from falling to her death. He could play Marlon Brando. Good movie but way to much jumping around with the camera. That was a major distraction. I now want to get the first Ironclad. Good realism of how filthy looking people and places looked in that time frame. The behind the scenes part was interesting. All the actors did a good job with their portrayals. They must have done a lot of research because did make the very realistic. It would've been interesting to be present during filming to see first hand everything.

"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+.

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.