The Headsman

I got this movie to watch without any preconceived ideas at all, no reviews to consider, but a good IMDb rating.

The intro scene caught my attention and helped set the mood and character of the two leading roles for further into the movie.

I liked the level of detail and griminess that would have been appropriate at that time and the overall setting both inside and outside the town. I'd say this was perhaps more realistic and less Hollywood than other similar period movies, such as perhaps Braveheart.

Particularly, the feeling of social exclusion for a looked down upon yet 'approved' role was quite interesting, especially in comparison to the punishable 'unapproved' yet socially acceptable roles.

Overall, this movie is one that I'd recommend and will likely watch again.

The actors played very well, the atmosphere was very sharp, so they got the feel right. I remember reading the Name of the Rose and noticing that the movie failed to mention almost anything about the religious background of the story from the book. When watching The Headsman, I felt like they presented more of that background in detriment of the story which felt a bit rushed. But, after all, some viewers actually complained about too little information regarding the Anabaptists so I guess the movie actually showed the actions, rather than the background, just as the Name of the Rose movie.

Bottom line: it was a good script. It would have probably been better as a miniseries and with a slightly different ending, but it was a story worth knowing. You should be warned about some torture and pure human stupidevil scenes.

The Headsman is a much better film than most of the IMDb ratings and reviews here. One problem is that people want to be entertained in a medieval film and having swordplay, gore, special effects, a princess and a hero all help. This film doesn't have that. One reviewer compared it with The Name of the Rose and it definitely falls into that category.

There really isn't much intrigue, however, and that would have made it a better film. It is more about the honor of Martin (Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau) who has a childhood friendship with Georg (Peter McDonald), marries an outcast (Anna played by Anastasia Griffith) and chooses an untouchable professional as an executioner. It is about human nature: betrayal, love, ambition, greed, honor, and the dilemmas that come when forces beyond one's control affects one's life and one is faced with undesirable choices.

Forces of good and evil are at battle as mistrust, superstition, crudeness and naivety dominate the Inquisition period. Not everything is within control but Martin lives honorable and his friend Georg does too but at times is torn by his conscience and what the town leaders and Inquisition ask him to do.

Unfortunately, Martin is unaware that Georg is willing to help but his hands are tied. Sadly no one questions the despicable, filthy Fabio (Eddie Marsan) about the truth although it certainly would made sense. But perhaps that makes heroes in the film, an outcome not preferred. And in those times, witches and heretics were hanged, executed or burned. Reason wasn't the norm but fear and superstition ruled. No heroes, things beyond our control, love and suffering. Even being the daughter of the emperor or son of the archbishop doesn't save anyone. For comparison, the Black Death nor Inquisition spared no one of title.

In the historical context, it's a graphically accurate film, not a Hollywood-type film (e.g, Braveheart). The set and acting were excellent. Cinematography and atmosphere were good, although I would have preferred sharper camera work and use of the landscape. But perhaps being low-budgeted, the filming was limited. Script was reasonable but could be stronger. Since reality isn't as dramatic as fantasy, this movie won't excite many unless you like a thoughtful period drama.

Ok, so the writing and much of the acting do rather let this down, but it has assembled a surprisingly decent cast and the standard of the production is really fairly good for what must have been a fairly low-budget affair. It's all about two lads who were separated at a young age. One - "Georg" (Peter McDonald) is headed for holy orders, the other "Martin" (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) is seconded into the military service of the emperor. Years pass and events now dictate that the former man be the prior in a small town where the latter is sent - as it's executioner. John Shrapnel is probably the most lauded Thespian in this drama, but his role of the bishop is predictable and undercooked suggesting he only had one or two filming days to give this. Steven Berkoff is here too, but he is nowhere near his maniacal best as the menacingly titled "inquisitor" and at just short of two hours, it all takes far too long to get anywhere near the sharp end of it's blade. Aesthetically, it does look good and it does give us a sense of the mud-strewn life lived by a population that lived in fear of a church that was very much of the "do as I say, not as I do" frame of mind and you like the genre then it's a sort of "Cadfael" with gore, - and I didn't hate it.

Shadow of the Sword is a good film with an interesting and different story that paints a picture of the Catholic Church and its cruel inquisition.

However, it doesn't give much of an understanding of those who were being persecuted, the Anabaptists (or other groups that are mentioned without being explained). It would have been a clear improvement if we were given a deeper portrayal of especially the Anabaptists as well as the other main characters.

The film should have been a little longer to give these better descriptions. It has a lot of good parts, but it is missing some depth in its character descriptions. The story is quite gripping and strong and it is a great period piece, but it lacks some depth and should give the viewer a better understanding of the background and develop the characters more.