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?

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

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.

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 does not try to be more then it is. 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.