NOTE IMDb
4,3/10
3,1 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA survivor of the Great Siege of Rochester Castle fights to save his clan from Celtic raiders. A sequel to the 2011 film, "Ironclad."A survivor of the Great Siege of Rochester Castle fights to save his clan from Celtic raiders. A sequel to the 2011 film, "Ironclad."A survivor of the Great Siege of Rochester Castle fights to save his clan from Celtic raiders. A sequel to the 2011 film, "Ironclad."
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Zorana Becic Djordjevic
- Vyla
- (as Zorana Becic)
Avis à la une
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.
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.
While the first IRONCLAD was a solid medieval action movie, this sequel is essentially the same movie and, even more to it's detriment, is horribly shot and edited. Describing the plot is an easy task. Basically, replace King John's small army with a clan of Scottish raiders and you have this movie. The only connection between the two is a minor character, Guy, who is the main character in this sequel (but played by a different actor). Other than that, the plot plays out, beat for beat, almost exactly like its predecessor. And to top things off, it is worse in almost every department. The acting isn't as good as the first one and there aren't any big-name actors to elevate the material, but no one stuck out as being particularly horrible. Additionally, the violence and gore aren't completely practical this time, instead opting for CGI blood spatter and poor dummy work for the more graphic shots (e.g., beheading). There was also some fairly obvious green screen and CGI enhancements that were really distracting at times. However, the worst aspect of this film is the camera-work, which is mostly "shaky-cam." Hand-held camera during the dialogue scenes didn't really bother me, but the vigorous shaking of the camera during the action sequences was nauseating and made them extremely hard to follow. Still, there are a few aspects which aren't too bad. For one the score is appropriate to the material, even though a bit overblown. And even though the action scenes are rather poorly filmed, there are some good kills. They also attempt (with mixed results) to give the characters, including the villains, some depth. Overall, this film is a few steps down from the first in terms of quality across the board, some of it probably due to the reduced budget.
The last hope for the embattled movie-goer has been destroyed with the release of this so-called movie. British movies have up to now not been plagued by the Hollywood disease of bad directors, bad dialogue, bad acting, and use of the shaky camera for action scenes. Sadly, either the makers of this movie imported one of the useless crop of Hollywood directors or else they succumbed to the new Hollywood practices, which have seen the quality of Hollywood movies plunge. This movie is beyond bad. The acting is diabolical. The dialogue is criminally bad. The plot is all over the place. The sets are a joke and the massive overuse of the shaky cam for action scenes would actually make you dizzy. In fact in some scenes the shaky cam continues even when the action has stopped. I wonder if the producers even watched this rubbish before they released it. If they did, then they have no consciences. I strongly advise all sane movie goers to avoid this so called movie at all costs, and I sincerely hope that this is not the future of British movies.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesMovie opens with Italian recap left off from Ironclad (2011). Roughly translated: Five years after the siege of Rochester Castle and the sedition of the rebellion against the King. The England is at peace, but to the country's contentions they raging conflicts. The Scottish clans, the loss of their lands and the race, they attack English castles and villages places on the borders. Without being able to rely on the help from the Crown, the English lords are left alone to defend their possessions and must avail themselves of the aid of every man to be found, even the weak, the humble and how many are willing to fight for little change.
- GaffesIn the epilogue, Hubert states that his cousin Guy later went on to fight in the Hundred Years War. This would not have been possible because the film is set in the year 1221, but the Hundred Years War took place between 1337 and 1453. Guy could not have taken part in those wars unless he lived to be over 140. In addition, the term Hundred Years War was first used by 19th century historians.
- Citations
Pierrepoint: [During a lull in battle] You and your friend, it's good to see people happy at their work.
Guy the Squire: We've had a lot of practice.
- ConnexionsFollows Le Sang des Templiers (2011)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Ironclad: Battle for Blood?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Ironclad 2: Battle for Blood
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut mondial
- 115 791 $US
- Durée1 heure 48 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Le Sang des Templiers 2 (2014) officially released in Canada in English?
Répondre