Surprisingly incoherent and boring

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

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

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?

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.

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.