J Pierre 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.

kosmasp 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.

Sean Jump 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.

teslavate -- 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