Argemaluco Despite its doubtful historical veracity and not being highly memorable, I found Ironclad an entertaining medieval action film. The sequel, Ironclad: Battle for Blood, tried to repeat the formula, but the result is a poor movie, because of its weak screenplay, bad performances and insipid direction. There are various bloody battle sequences in this film, but the abuse of the hand-held camera ends up ruining them and becoming them a parade of incomprehensible images with cuts every half a second which avoid the spectator to follow the flow of the action. The actors feel totally feigned and not credible at all in their roles, and the screenplay is uninteresting and full of clichés. On the positive side, the landscapes and castles in which Ironclad: Battle for Blood was shot are truly impressive. Nevertheless, that wasn't enough to rescue this film, and I can't recommend it, because it bored me pretty much.

stephensims53 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?

richardahickling 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

ashley wetherall 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.