The Reckoning

The Reckoning really is a medieval thriller. Most of the people you ask what do you expect from a medieval movie will tell you that they'll see a bunch of guys in metal armors with large swords beating the living daylight out of each other. The Reckoning is more like The Name Of The Rose (1986). All the `good' guys aren't goodie little two-shoes and all the bad guys aren't evil, malicious, arrogant royals with black hearts. There are a lot of similarities with In The Name Of The Rose (1986). A young runaway priest meets a group of actors, joins them and they set off for the nearest town. Upon arrival they witness the trial of a deaf-mute woman who supposedly killed a boy in a nearby woods. Driven by guilt (for setting a play with misinterpreted story) actors decide to take the case in their own hands and solve the murder. Cast is very good. Paul Bettany really is a good actor. He's come a long way since A Knight's Tale (2001) and A Beautiful Mind (2001). Willem Defoe is truly magnificent. He's one of those actors that can play any given part and in The Reckoning he plays the leader of the actors, with ideas way ahead of his time. Brian Cox although has little screen time cannot be unnoticed. Gina McKee sucks, and I don't know what is she doing in this movie. Probably the producers wanted a woman character in the story so writers made up Sarah. Blah. Vincent Cassel is excellent as a blue-blooded count. Not much lines dough. I strongly recommend this film, for it is one of the best thrillers that has appeared in a past few years. If you liked In The Name Of The Rose (1986), I think you'll love this film too. And vice versa.

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.

A gem of a film. Artistic without being pretentious, moving without being cliché. Paul Bettany is completely believable as a tormented priest, Willem Dafoe is as always intense and a joy to watch. The movie takes place in the dark ages mostly in a small outpost in the English countryside. A woman is wrongly accused of murder and a traveling troupe of actors, lead by Dafoe, enters the town and becomes involved in clearing her name of the accusation.

I was most impressed with the set they used for the village, it's incredible. The set immerses you in the desperate and dramatic feel of the film properly. The film has an authentic theatrical feel to it. More like it's being acted on stage rather than on location. I recommend this well acted tale.

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.

The mission of the movie seems to be to portray how things were in the middle ages, and while I think it's a pretty good and well-acted movie with a relevant story, I doubt that most of the main characters' actions and way of thinking are anywhere near historically accurate. The year is 1380. What's all this about voting?? And the priest's sense of justice seems just a wee bit too well-developed. And would the actors turn around to help a deaf and dumb condemned prisoner that they practically didn't know? Doesn't feel realistic to me. The movie seems glazed over with a lot of modern sentiment and sense of justice (and democracy!), which essentially turns it into light entertainment rather than a serious story. But at its heart it does have a message of showing how the powerful used to prey on the powerless (and, indirectly, how they still do today), and as such does contribute something to the current mass audience's understanding of history and the world.

7 out of 10.