The Reckoning

5 seconds in I was distracted by the actress's hair and makeup. Lol 1665. Watched it to the end and nothing redeeming about this movie. Slow and plodding with 1 hour 45 minute runtime. Could have been 80 minutes and still too long.

This is how I feel sometimes. Even more so now that I got confirmation that quite a lot of my previews reviews have been taken of imdb. I have no idea why - and I am not sure if it is good to know (someone reported them or they just got lost). Because either way it is bad and kind of sad.

This was one of the movies that I have to re-write my review for. I will save my reviews from now on, but it won't help too much if I don't know when and which review has been taken off. Not knowing why and what brings us to the movie. Because our main character here is being accused of things ...mainly because she is a woman and because she does not want to have anything to do with another male. So you know what he is going to accuse her of ... crazy times for women back then.

The movie is well acted, while it does try to avoid cliches as much as possible. Overall this is quite decent and I might even consider giving this a 7 one of these days. Maybe after a re-watch.

I truly don't understand the negativity on this film. Everything about it is 70's Hammer horror films! I loved it. It's fun and very gothic. The movie this one is shamelessly patterned after (witchfinder general wirh Vincent price) is essentially the same story only more graphic. Lol! I had fun, I don't care what anyone else says.

This is an ok film, certainly not a 1/10! I really like Neil Marshall films, The Descent, Doomsday, Dog Soldiers, you can always feel the common directorial style.

It's not a patch on these but it's still reasonable and definitely worth a watch. Sean Pertwee as the witchfinder is terrific, let's face it he's always consistently good.

You could say this is a bit of a modern day reboot of The Witchfinder General with Vincent Price. The lead actress is pretty good, as is pretty much the whole cast. I won't say too much, just watch it and enjoy it.

Yup, this is a bad film, made worse because it clearly had a decent budget, films with a quarter of the budget are better. First our lead speaks as if she has just left RADA, her make-up and hair are all neatly done. The clothes she wears are all machine stitched, not to mention always clean, surprisingly difficult living on a farm in 1665.

It carries on like that throughout the film. The dialogue is appalling, so bad you wonder if a child wrote it. As for the story, well it's laughable bad. However it's the acting that is cringe worthy, Charlotte Kirk is rancid bad and is only in the role as her other-half is director Neil Marshall. If the name does ring-a-bell, Kirk is the 'actress' who had affairs with the CEO of Warner Bros and Vice-Chairman of NBCUniversal.

To think this is the same director who gave us Dog Soldiers, how times change.