Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

adonis98-743-186503 I was one of the few people that thought that the first Ironclad was great thanks to a very nice and known cast but this one? this one feels more like a cash grab. Except a famous Game of Thrones star nobody else in this movie is known for something. But like i said it's a dumb fun that nobody asked for the acting is all over the place, the cgi they used was awful but the movie has a lot of brutal kills and action and that is why you should see it it's a dumb action flick that tries to recreate the first movie and it pretty much fails in every way but other than that it was OK. I give Ironclad 2 a 7 out of 10 it was OK nothing more nothing else.

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.

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.

ashley wetherall I really like the first Ironclad movie and even when I herd that Ironclad 2 wasn't a patch on the original I thought I'd give it a try. Why oh why did I bother. It's hard to believe that it has the same director. It seems that Jonathan English has taken out all the things that made the first Ironclad movie work so well and kept but amplified all the things that are really not worth remembering about the first film. He also manages to rip off other medieval films but without any of they're style this includes strangely the first Ironclad. As for the main cast, they're all pretty terrible which is a shame as I have seen them give better performances in other roles. The one thing that still impresses are the action sequences which are well choir graphed but these are mostly ruined by the constant shaky camera work. The cgi effects are OK but some times they look like they've been lifted from the video game medieval total war. To sum up why did they even bother to make this film. Jonathan English is a talented director but he seems to have really dropped the ball with this film. He seems to have forgotten what made the first ironclad movie work. Ironclad never needed a sequel. He should have made a movie about The battle of Hastings or Azincourt instead of ripping himself off.