The Reckoning

There were several reasons why I was looking forward to seeing this movie: 1) An appealing genre: It was said to be a movie in the class of 'The Name of the Rose', which is great, 2) an appealing plot, 3) an appealing trailer, which is just mesmerizing, and 4) an appealing cast, with actors such as Bettany, Dafoe and Cassel. I did find it both entertaining and including much of the right, somber mood, but still it missed something as a movie. It was just not convincing enough. I had a strong feeling that quite a few of the actors didn't fit their characters, I didn't feel anything about the characters as a spectator, the setting wasn't authentic enough, and the dramatic development was rather weak. It started out very promising, but somehow it never came to its right. But what I really enjoyed about this movie was that it was a great tribute to the art of acting. Moreover, there are great costumes and music. Actually, I would have preferred it to be a (traveling) play rather than a movie... :-) However, Paul Bettany freaks (like me) should absolutely not miss it.

Director Paul McGuigan gathers a team of excellent actors in this medieval mystery drama. This is not an easy genre, although there are excellent books to start from and at least one film to remember, 'The Name of the Rose' that was a great success a couple of decades ago. In 'Reckoning' the staging of the action is very good, the characters are strong and credible, and the atmosphere of the time - 14th century England - makes it to the screen. The story of an ex-priest joining a group of actors who get involved in a crime and wrong justice story in a village they perform is quite interesting, at least at the beginning. Paul Bettamy and William Defoe give good performances, and the rest of the team is not far behind. The problem is with the story - it starts well leading to a theater in movie scene which is the key of the whole movie. The mistake in the script is that this scene comes too early, and the rest of the story is too easy to predict and not interesting enough. I lost interest in the second half, and it looked like the director also ran out of ideas, most of the best visuals are in the first half, the second just repeats what we saw in the first and in many other films. Overall a movie above average, 7 out of 10 on my personal scale.

This film was a total surprise for me. I went to see it without any pre conceived ideas; I had no clue what to expect. I based my decision on the the strength of the cast here assembled. It proved me right, as this is a movie that is very satisfying without being pretentious, or preachy.

It is, without a doubt, a major achievement for its director, Paul McGuigan. It probably would be intimidating to undertake a project of this magnitude and still bring together all the right elements to make this film enjoyable. The only sad part is that it seems this film is not getting its fair share the way it's being marketed, at least in this country.

Paul Bettany is amazing as the young priest who commits a terrible sin and has to leave the security of his church. He is fortunate to meet with the kind hearted Martin, and his troupe of players. William Dafoe is very good as the principal actor in this group. Brian Cox's role is brief, but he is very effective. Elvira Minguez has no dialogue at all, but her presence is crucial to the story and her Martha adds another layer to the story.

Despite the different acting styles and accents, the story keeps the viewer engrossed in the story. I do hope it will get the audience it sadly needs, for this is a much better film than the silly stuff being offered these days.

I've watched this movie 4 times in the last three days, and I'm still not sure I've grokked all of its subtleties yet. Beautiful, yes -- the village set is a series of enclosures, mazes within mazes, that contribute to the entrapped mood surrounding the characters. Even in the scenes outside the village, the woods and hills close in around the actors, like the enfolding wings and backdrops of a stage. The closeups are unsettlingly revealing - filthy fingers with smooth nails using a sharp, rough flint to cut hair down to the scalp....dark eyes revealing everything and nothing....a hand laid caressingly near the jugular....strong fingers....and Paul Bettany's disturbing blue eyes. I can't say enough about Bettany's take on the outcast priest -- he manages moral outrage and submissive pathos with equal ease, and his smiles always have a hint of tears behind them. A haunting performance -- I would go across the world to see Bettany play Hamlet or Macbeth.

Everything in the setting and art direction of this nicely done dramatic mystery is of Academy Award caliber, so why was it not nominated? It should have been.

The plot is simple but handled in a most perceptive and well-conceived manner, and makes for a riveting tale, with superb performances by nearly everyone involved. A murder mystery set in the 13th century in England, of course with the dangerous politics of aristocracy as fodder.

The fault of this film is in the portrayal of the villain, who is lacking in development and nothing more than a one-dimensional Simon Legree. One fully expects him to pull his mustache and cackle. His eventual downfall is welcome, but handled in way that just seems unrealistic for the times.

Here is a fellow who is suspected of planning a revolt against the King of England, yet he only has about 6 knights in his stable when push comes to shove? What? Then the angry villagers burn down the gigantic castle, which was the size of about the rest of the town. Right, they'd prefer to just burn it down rather than use it.

Other than that, a great film.