I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Very unnecessary sequel with bad acting and bad cgi. The characters was all annoying. The first film was way better in my opinion. I don't recommend this film.

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.

If you like the shaky camera movement in film today then you might like the cinematography of "Ironclad II", if it makes you nauseated to watch then pass on this film - the movie is full of shaky camera movement. I do NOT like the "let's shake the camera" cinematography.Now, if the camera was still then I could have enjoyed this film a lot more. The story is OK, not grand but okay. Acting is alright while the costumes & sets are really nice but that's about it with this film.This is NOTHING like the original film as far as quality. I know they were on a budget but why ruin the film with a shaky camera? This is why I'm NOT fond of today's films - nauseating camera movements.I'm disappointed in this film - and I was looking forward to watching it but not with this shaky camera. Film makers: "Please stop with all the crappy shaky cameras - it's annoying! Copycatting this crappy style makes for a crappy film.".3/10

"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+.