Ironclad: Battle for Blood
Tags: violence, action

Plot synopsis:
Five years after the events of Ironclad, the de Vesci family struggles with Pict raiders along the English-Scottish border. In one of these raids, the patriarch of the family loses his arm to the chieftain's son, who is killed by the family manservant and hung on the wall. While resting in bed, the father commands his son Hubert to seek out his cousin to assist in defending the castle from the Picts. Hubert leaves in silence the next night.
Hubert discovers Guy in Kingstown at an underground brawl with his friend Berenger. Guy tells Hubert that he will help if he is paid. While they leave, they barter with the executioner, Pierrepoint, to let a prisoner, Mary, live. Even though he insists on her death because of her brutal murdering spree, he relents and eventually joins the group. Upon their return, they see that the castle is once more under siege, so they enter through the sallyport. Guy, Berenger, Mary, and Pierrepoint demonstrate their fighting capability as the successfully repel the assault.

Review: The besieged cousin seeks the help of his kin.The plot is very weak, even for a revenge Movie.
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.
"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..
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.
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.
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.
Maybe that makes it sound better than the movie is for some, but it really isn't.
Not really worth your time, there are way better movies out there..
Ironclad: Battle for Blood is a tedious sequel.
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.
On the positive side, the landscapes and castles in which Ironclad: Battle for Blood was shot are truly impressive.
Generic "storm the castle" movie that is nowhere near as good as its predecessor.
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.
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.
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).
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.
And even though the action scenes are rather poorly filmed, there are some good kills.
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.
Nothing terrible but like most sequels it seems to diminish what was likable about the original..
"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.
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 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.
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.
A good portrayal of medieval times.
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 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..
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.
For starters there is shaky cam during the action scenes and this is Richter scale 8 shaking, so a bit disappointing.
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 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)...
If You Like The Shaky Camera Movement In Films Today....
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
I only remember that I liked the prequel, the previous film, back in 2011, except the ending for silly audiences.
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.
Castle Combat and a good, basic entertainment movie.
-- 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.
-- 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 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.
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.
-- 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.
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?
holy cow does it ruin the fight scenes so bad.
Then when it comes to story, i really didn't like the character development they tried to do with some.
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.
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???
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.
Fool on me.The film follows the typical savage Scots attacking the English lords in their keep.
So begins an extensive siege that claims all but 4 lives in the end.The acting wasn't bad.
The fortress castle and the landscape were good and the script wasn't bad either ...
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.
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 you like taking walks or head butting a wall then your time is better spent on those things - they're more fulfilling!