MovieChat Forums > Ironclad: Battle for Blood (2014) Discussion > Terrible movie on so many levels.*spoile...

Terrible movie on so many levels.*spoilers*


The first Ironclad was a pretty good. Unfortunately, this one was a waste of time.

Terrible Dialogue

Embarrassing Special effects. Piss poor CGI used for everything.

Scots seemed to have a unlimited supply of soldiers and supplies to siege a castle. Whats funny is that it looks more like raiding party than an actual army so I'm not sure where all their numbers are coming from.

The anti-hero protagonist was lame. No charisma. Nothing. Just a boring dude who did nothing but challenge the scots leader to a duel at the end.He couldn't even do that right and needed is incestual girlfriend to bail him out.

Then the most nonsensical thing happens. Some scot fat bald dude with a hammer randomly throws one of his female scots off a cliff after she assaulted the protagonist's incestual girlfriend. After that they are on their merry way as if the siege never happened and everyone lives happily every after.....

reply

And the main villain, Maddog, has got to be the least charismatic actor they could find to play the main antagonist! And half of the shots are copied from Neil Marshall's far superior "Centurion".

Very weak film. Especially because the first one was awesome!

reply

Its near unwatchable.Its sad, I loved the first Ironclad

www.thecultofhorror.blogspot.com

reply

Why the heck did Ogre kill her? She was just following the Chiefs orders, but otherwise treated his wounds, and sided with him politically.




Thor 2-Attack of the Clones-The 5th Element the trifecta of bad movies.

reply