Gathered together by young Hubert (Tom Rhys Harries), a small band of hired swords gather inside his families castle intent on holding off evil Celtic Tribesmen hell-bent on revenge for the death of their leaders' son: a young mercenary named Guy (Tom Austen) whose soul is wracked with guilt over the atrocities he has committed during the days and years after the great battle of Rochester Castle and his burgeoning feelings for Kate, his cousin (Roxanne McKee), ; battle-hardened mercenaries such as Berenger (David Caves), who fight not for God and country for money and bloodlust.Written by
Warner Bros. UK
To save money and avoid accidents, the extras and most of the cast did not wear medieval shoes, but modern shows covered by gaiters or rags. See more »
In the epilogue, Hubert states that his cousin Guy later went on to fight in the Hundred Years War. This would not have been possible because the film is set in the year 1221, but the Hundred Years War took place between 1337 and 1453. Guy could not have taken part in those wars unless he lived to be over 140. In addition, the term Hundred Years War was first used by 19th century historians. See more »
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.
18 of 21 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this