Ironclad 2: Battle for Blood (2014)

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.

I finished it. Not without fast forwarding through on my sky box on a few parts but I finished it. I never reviewed a film before but this was the straw that broke the camels back - I knew I had to save innocents from this abhorrent time sink.It was a cold December 27th night that I saw this film coming on to Sky Premier a little later than I wanted to stay up, ergo I slapped it with a record and went peacefully to my bed. Come the afternoon of the following day I got a drink and sat down. I pressed play. Fool on me.The film follows the typical savage Scots attacking the English lords in their keep. It doesn't particularly elaborate as to why except that the chieftain has suffered the loss of his family at the hands of SOME English. As such, he wants to kill all the English. Sounds legit. So begins an extensive siege that claims all but 4 lives in the end.The acting wasn't bad. Don't misunderstand my 4/10, the acting wasn't bad at all. Nor was the setting. The fortress castle and the landscape were good and the script wasn't bad either ... at least for the English. Medevil England is a great historical period and worthy of films. This didn't do it justice.The plot? The plot in itself was direly lacking any real direction outside of several characters developing. It was so similar to every other film of the period, and consisted of a small force assaulting a very small but fortified force; thats fine. Epic battles don't need to have thousands of people. 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. Unimaginative. Uninspiring. Boring and dull. You don't know if some characters will live and die; frankly you don't care. 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 the alternative is sitting still staring into space then this film is for you! If you like taking walks or head butting a wall then your time is better spent on those things - they're more fulfilling!

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.

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.