Ironclad: Battle For Blood

The title's promise of violence is dutifully met in gory, sonically squishy close-quarter melees shot in Confuse-o-vision, as if the camera had been strapped to a whirring blender before the footage was edited with the puree button.

Essentially 108 minutes of woad-daubed Scots and begrimed English settlers slogging it out over a castle on the Scottish border in 1221.

Battle for Blood is ultimately too accurate a subtitle; this film is a bloodbath, and not an edifying one in the slightest.

Much sound and fury ensues, but without a compelling story behind it, it signifies very little.

Despite too much jerky camera work, 'Ironclad 2' boasts lots of action and a stirring background score. Plus, its cup runneth over with medieval blood and gore.

It throws historical accuracy out the window even more than its predecessor.

Battle for Blood continues to make 13th-century England look like a truly wretched place to live or, more often, die in. But while it delivers some strong battle sequences, the characters are less vividly drawn than in its predecessor.

...a grisly, humorless, tension-free, badly shot slog of a sorta-sequel.

Attempting to cover up production constraints, English makes Battle for Blood visually worthless at times, which doesn't help the picture's ongoing fatigue as it gradually runs out of shock value and fascinating characters.

It has the feel of a follow up that English either helmed so no one else could or was desperate to make, despite a lack of interest from financiers and agents.

The director manages to deliver a commendable production on what appears to be little budget.

What should have been a quick, exciting medieval skirmish starts to feel like the 100 Years War.