Excellent but underrated film

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Honestly i picked this up in a bargain bin at 2$. I got it cause Catelyn Stark was on the cover... 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? I never saw the first one...Well.... this was a let down. The biggest problem is the shaky cam... holy cow does it ruin the fight scenes so bad. Its so shaky you can't see anything. Then when it comes to story, i really didn't like the character development they tried to do with some. It just felt off. For example the woman who was saved from death and then used as a mercenary kinda rape the "young lord" but thats it... there is nothing more like trying to establish love or whatever. And then she eventually go on and have sex with the main character's side kick and the young lord kinda feel sadness? Like what...? They kinda try to aim at a love interest but it never goes anywhere.I could speak of the executioner character too which story arc goes nowhere. 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. They retreat 2 times after 2 fail attempts and loose many men, yet at the end they figure out they should try something different and they still seem to have dozens of soldiers. Then there is only the good guy left with the 2 women, so he challenge main bad guy to a 1 on 1 fight, seem cliché as the scotts have already won anyway, there many left for no good guys. And then after one of the woman intervene the Scottish guy get kill by a cheap shot and his soldiers pretty much just say oh well... you won, we out of here. Like what??? 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??? I mean, i dunno historically when arrows and bows where invented, but it does seem weird to see a castle defence without those. 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

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

"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. What he hopes to find is someone with the same passion for protecting his land that he does, but what he finds is a war hardened mercenary who is only interested in money. 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 have never been a big fan of these mid-evil type movies. 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. This one never seemed to fall into what it wanted to me. 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. I give this a C+.

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.