IMDb > Ironclad: Battle for Blood (2014) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Ironclad: Battle for Blood
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Ironclad: Battle for Blood More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 17 reviews in total 

46 out of 65 people found the following review useful:

UK Movie Makers Infected with Hollywood Disease

Author: Had Enough from Ireland
22 June 2014

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

your typical revenge movie

Author: vampiri from Sweden
29 June 2014

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Ironclad: Battle for Blood is a tedious sequel

Author: Argemaluco from Argentina
17 January 2015

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Same? No!

Author: kosmasp
14 October 2014

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Generic "storm the castle" movie that is nowhere near as good as its predecessor

Author: brchthethird from United States
14 November 2014

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Inferior Sequel

Author: Sean Jump from United States
7 August 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

What happened Johnny English .

Author: ashley wetherall from United Kingdom
29 July 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

OK Historical Romp that is big on the romping and very tiny indeed on the history.

Author: Tom Dooley from London, United Kingdom
23 May 2016

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:


Author: stephensims53 from chesterfield
17 October 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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?

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:


Author: GUENOT PHILIPPE ( from France
28 September 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I only remember that I liked the prequel, the previous film, back in 2011, except the ending for silly audiences. This film brings no more to the original, nothing at all. 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.


Here, good dudes kill the evil ones in the end. Period.

Not a waste of time, but you can live without it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history