Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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.

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.

This is supposed to be Ironclad 2 and follow on from the siege of Rochester. Instead it is about some family of Norman descent privilege that have built a castle on the border land with Scotland. Then a vengeful Clan Chief leads his bunch of be-woded warriors to wreak revenge and do a lot of gurning.The plot is that the young master – Hubert – has to go and get help from an estranged cousin who is a bit handy, as it were. This is Guy played rather well by Tom Austen. Then the action begins and to be fair there is plenty of action and it is mostly good.However, there are some issues that could have been resolved and this would have been soo much better. For starters there is shaky cam during the action scenes and this is Richter scale 8 shaking, so a bit disappointing. Then the use of wode – I mean really this is supposed to be 1221. The spiral staircases in the castle go down on the left giving the advantage to the attacker – sack the architect immediately. Then during the fight scenes which contain 'explosions' for added authenticity they have buckets of straw strategically placed to spread as much fire as possible inside the besieged castle. I could go on but I think that is enough. Most of the acting is good though and they actually manage to engender pathos in parts and I enjoyed 80% of it, but this is one that many will not want to bother with because of the aforementioned issues and a bit more beside – I won't bother if they make a turd – I mean a third one in this series.

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