AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

amgee-89551 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.

kosmasp This might (at this moment at least) have the same cover/picture as the previous "Ironclad" movie, but apart from the setting (middle ages) of course. Unfortunately and although this is trying, this never reaches any of the heights of the previous Ironclad. It's pretty much cliché after cliché thrown in and more than a little bit predictable. The fights are nicely done though.There is also nudity and intercourse and love affairs that seem inappropriate. Maybe that makes it sound better than the movie is for some, but it really isn't. It's nicely (read gray and dark) shot, but that's about it. Not really worth your time, there are way better movies out there.

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.

Thomas Vanhoutte This is not a Hollywood movie, and if you are looking for pretty cgi, this is not for you.While the first movie was slightly better, this movie is actually a very good attempt to portray what medieval times would have been like.It does not try to be an action movie. Instead the deeper underlying message is one about the futility of war and the fragility of life.I would only recommend this movie if you are into the whole medieval theme, but considering the budget they did a good job at trying to tell a story that is not just about sword-fights. Its about men trying to live by honor and create a better future in times when civilization was but a vague concept.If you can look past the low budget, this movie is a little gem. It does not try to be more then it is. It just tells events and how it affects the people involved in them.You simply cannot compare this to large Hollywood productions, but it does a good job at portraying medieval times.