Jonathan English has followed up his 2011 medieval siege film Ironclad with a sequel along very, very similar lines. The story this time moves north as a survivor from the legendary events at Rochester Castle from the first film journeys to save his clan from the constant attacks of Celtic raiders.
With familiar plotting it falls to the Hubert (Tom Rhys Harries) to secure the assistance from his cousin Guy (Tom Austen) and a band of mercenaries to help hold the castle who are more mediocre and magnificent. If you have seen Ironclad then you will know pretty much what to expect from the Ironclad: Battle for Blood. Issues arise immediately in trying to replicate much of what has gone before; this time the budget is clearly lower and therefore the reliance that English had on the gory, bloody effects in Ironclad just isn’t possible.
Many of the things fans will have liked in the original are missing and have been replaced by weaker, less convincing versions of violence. The sense of realism that had previously been strived for has sadly gone and therefore much of the action has become diluted and less engaging. The problem ultimately is that Battle For Blood just has to be compared with its predecessor.
In keeping to the same formula and following similar plot points it is impossible not to and therefore the elements you either liked or didn’t like are emphasised. Gone is the cast with strength in depth. There is no Giamatti or Jacobi, no Purefoy or Flemyng and while the new cast including Rosie Day and Roxanne Mckee do their best, there is simply no audience involvement in their lives.
The characters are very much ciphers and it feels as if the filmmakers have just constructed a film by the numbers without giving real thought to what they wanted to say or where they wanted to go. It is difficult therefore to find many positives. While Battle For Blood is not a bad film by any means, it just isn’t a good one. It is difficult to find much to remember once watched, as if the whole thing passes by without leaving so much as a memorable death or a heaving bosom to cling onto.
Everything feels like something you’ve seen before (which you have in the original) and this repetition comes across as lazy or contractual. English clearly has an eye for scene setting and atmosphere as visually this is an impressive film but even that is a problem. In looking exactly like Ironclad, Battle For Blood suffers further by comparison.
OVERALL SUMMARY
In the end it is difficult to see why this film exists. If it is a medieval siege film you fancy on a Friday night then seek out Ironclad. At least then you can enjoy the hammy overacting from Paul Giamatti and Brian Cox amidst the slashing of swords and axes.
