Alicia I love this movie so much

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

brchthethird 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.

stephensims53 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?

GUENOT PHILIPPE 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. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERSHere, good dudes kill the evil ones in the end. Period. Not a waste of time, but you can live without it.

Tony Heck "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+.