User reviews

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.

I had virtually no idea what I sat down to watch, as I happened to get the opportunity to watch the 2020 movie "The Reckoning". But the movie's cover had some appeal to it, and since I hadn't already seen the movie, of course I managed to find the time to do so.

Well, "The Reckoning" definitely had potential to be something unique and interesting, yet amazingly enough then writers Neil Marshall, Charlotte Kirk and Edward Evers-Swindell managed to produce only a lukewarm script that offered little in terms of a storyline that ensorcelled the audience. Sure, "The Reckoning" is watchable, but it is a very bland and highly forgettable movie.

The storyline in "The Reckoning" was one that had so much to offer, yet the writers failed entirely to seize the material readily available within hands reach and let director Neil Marshall bring something truly worthwhile to the screen. The end result is a very mediocre movie about alleged witchery and plague set during the year of 1665.

Visually, then "The Reckoning" wasn't lacking anything. There were a great many sets, scenes, props and costumes, which definitely helped to build a world set in 1665. But the lack of an interesting and captivating storyline just made it all seem so futile.

The characters in the movie had lots of potential to be grown and nurtured into full-fledged characters with many aspects to them, but again, the writers were just not delivering where it mattered. And this resulted in most of the characters coming off on the screen as being superficial and rather one-dimensional characters.

Now, it should be said that acting in the movie was actually fairly good, especially when taking into consideration the severe limitations imposed on the actors and actresses by a lack of proper script and having half-written characters to work with. It should be mentioned that Charlotte Kirk (playing Grace Haverstock), Sean Pertwee (playing John Moorcroft) and Steven Waddington (playing Squire Pendleton) definitely put on great performances, just a shame it was done within such a mediocre movie.

While I managed to sit through the entire movie, this movie was not one that rang overly entertaining, nor is it a movie that I would recommend you rushing out to get a copy of - because it just wasn't that good. My rating of the movie settles on a very mediocre and bland five out of ten stars.

Maybe it's because the majority of the cast are relatively unknown, that this film doesn't get the recognition it deserves...but this film is solid. I totally understand that we all perceive movies differently...but giving this movie a 1/10 is just bizarre!

It looks and sounds great...in fact, the score is amazing. Even the music for the closing credits is excellent! A strong female lead and a good supporting cast.

The only issue I have is that for a film set in the 1600's, sometimes the actors say things/behave in a way that's straight out of the 21st century! I won't spoil it and say what these things were, but they certainly seem out of place...and if you're really watching, you'll notice it too.

Overall I really enjoyed it. I'm not really a fan of films set in medieval times, but this and 'A Knight's Tale' are certainly mould breakers.

(Very mild spoilers in the last paragraph)

"Clumsy" is the first word that comes to mind when describing Neil Marshall's disappointingly unambitious Dark Age drama. In recent years we've been spoiled, perhaps, with well-executed female-led period revenge tales; Jennifer Kent's spellbinding The Nightingale was one of the best films of last year, and Mirrah Foulkes' devilish Judy & Punch quickly became a highlight of 2020. It's hard, then, not to compare The Reckoning to other films in recent memory with such superficial similarities, especially when it pales so thoroughly in comparison.

Grace (Charlotte Kirk) kicks us off by laying to rest her husband who has hanged himself on a tree outside their cottage. We learn, through parallel flashbacks, that he contracted "The Sickness" and took his own life to protect his family from the contagion. This sets off a chain of events that leads to Grace being accused of witchcraft by the town's petulant sheriff (Steven Waddington), who calls in a witch hunter to prosecute her (Sean Pertwee, spending the film twirling not only his own mustache but even the mustaches of those around him). What follows is a series of torture scenes, each more uncomfortably unrestrained than the last, interspersed with Grace's increasingly disturbing nightmares. These dream sequences should be the core of the film, as Grace's visions get more introspective and erotic, imagining her husband's embrace shifting into carnal acts with the devil himself. Instead, just like the torture, they never get more interesting even as they grow more graphic.

Every turn the plot takes is a predictable one. Every character is as stock as they come. Kirk, leading the cast and co-writing the script, delivers a bland performance that rarely conveys the suffering Grace endures. Marshall's direction is just as uninspired, with an inconsistent tone and a wobbly handheld camera that sticks to flat planes and textbook compositions. The production design lacks authenticity and the effects, while bloody, carry neither grit nor weight. Supporting performances are almost universally awful, given no help by the broad, clunky dialogue or their paint-by-numbers characterizations. Even Christopher Drake's sweeping score is overshadowed by the Hans Zimmer soundtracks it so clearly tries to evoke.

By the end of The Reckoning, once it's become clear that there's no deeper meaning to explore, no surprising twist to alleviate the gloom and nothing left to do but wait out the runtime, Grace's final revenge feels like less of a resolution and more of a liberation - as she stumbles, victorious, through a marsh, drenched in blood and dragging a broadsword behind her, the audience is equally free to go rewatch Judy & Punch instead.

Not very impressed with this.

A woman is accused of witchcraft while struggling in the aftermath of her husband committing suicide.

This story, setting and effects need some work. I assume this is a film that had a smaller budget but some of the small things that bugged me didn't seem like they would've been too much of an expense. Let's start with how incredibly clean this supposed plague infested town was. Sure, there were some corpses here and there and there were rats but the streets were clean, the establishments were clean and it just totally lacked realism. Where were the wagon and horse worn, muddy streets? Where was the hay, dirt and come to think of it why were the rats so clean? Why was our main actress's face always impeccable? I'm sorry but I just take issue with these things. On terms of all it lacked in this regard, it seemed more like I was watching a stage play.

The effects were CGI stuff and, well, you could tell it.

I wanted to like this so much more but it just fell really short of being worth a lot of investment. The only thing that makes me give it 3 Stars is the fact that I have seen worse.

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.

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.

Is somehow slotted as a period piece - which is just not connected to reality and quite annoying - the only thing remotely connected to the late 17th century is the opening scene showing a date and blurb of annoying, inaccurate, platitudes concerning witches and the plague... The sets are all wrong and disjointed, the costumes are all a mishmash of donated primary school theater garb, and the makeup - god - from the effects to the protagonist's odd, modern, yet still glamour shot tacky, cosmetics (that remain distinctly perfect the entirety of the film) all horribly distract from this amateur swiss cheese plot, insanely low budget camera work, and dialogue befitting 90's video game cut scenes (I've seen ticktoks with better cinematography.) Plague doctors with Top Hats... What? Why not baseball caps? Tenet farmers needing loans for rent, yet own bespoke flint locks, jewelry, and clothing ... What? HUGE London-esque dungeons filled with prisoners in a random countryside holding... Huh? A plague that stops being important 14 mins in... Weird as hell witch trial that makes no linear sense... This is not a period piece, not a horror movie, not an action thriller... It seems like a joke kinda... Like an episode of Xena... It is all just odd - I had to double take that this was at all connected to Neil Marshall... It just made me mad.

From scene 1 to the last. Garbage. Poor acting, poor story. Actors look bored. Worst Neil Marshall film ever. Bring back the director of the Descent

I was really keen to see this but Wow what a mess. Firstly it's meant to be the 1700's but it looks like it was shot yesterday at a mock medieval town with a group of locals dressed up in hired costumes . Absolutely no atmosphere or grading to give it a 'feel' then comes the acting . You will know the quality of it in the first two minute opening sequence. The lead actress is just awful , utterly unbelievable whither she is trying to drag a sword across the ground or being tortured. Also she looks like she has just stepped out of the make-up truck in every scene. The script is almost no existent just shouts of Witch, she's a witch , go on get her.... Poor Sean Pertwee did his best but can not save it . And finally the music . Clearly not composed for the film just bought the rights to some medieval / dramatic stuff and laid it over the top. Truly there are 100 better fan made films on YouTube, made with more care and attention then this.

Who let this movie be released? I thought I was watching a terrible made-for-tv movie on the CW.

I watched about 30 minutes of this before I had to stop. There was no redeeming factor to keep my interest alive at all. The actors were flat, the costumes appeared fake, and the pace of the movie was so slow, that I would rather have watched CSPAN.

This was a huge let down as Neil Marshal has directed quality movies in the past.

Watch at your own risk

[3/10]

When a film starts with a bunch of writing to set the scene I know it has a good chance of being bad. This wasn't bad! It was terrible. Skip the first ten minutes because not a thing happens. The rest is just badly acted drivel. Gone are the glory days of Dog Soldiers and The Decent. This washed up director should stop. Please stop!

I.don't know where the so called critics get their eyes from this was a brilliant movie absolutely loved it great acting good story and a good Friday night movie to share with friends.

God, what a poor experience this film is! Set in 1665 England, the year of the Great Plague, the film is dreary, low budget and filmed in such darkness most of the time that it might as well be a black-and-white. The characters and action is so cliché, too, greedy landowner hits on hot farm-girl widow, she rebuffs him, and he declares her a witch! Really? Was this written by a moron?! There's just no way ANY of this happened back then, or any time. And Charlotte Kirk as Grace Haverstock, the farm-girl widow. She's WAAAYYY too hot for this character. Women back then in old England, during The Great Plague, were nasty looking, with bad dentals, so this film is just all kinds of wrong, bad writing and directing. Just add it to the Covid-era pile of rubbish out back.

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.

Dog Soldiers, Descent, Doomsday, Centurion are all guilty pleasures. Even the critically damned Hellboy was enjoyable.

This on the other hand was a hard watch. The lead actress is pretty poor, apparently having suffered terrible torture throughout the movie, she still looks as radiant and agile at the end.

Heres hoping someone will give Marshall a budget to get himself back on track.

UPDATE - After reading reviews I can see the lead actress is Marshalls wife. The penny has dropped now, that would also explain why the numerous times she was naked the camera panned just about everywhere else.

A great story about witch hunts in medieval Europe.

Feels like a a very grim tale.

Wonderful gothic atmosphere, good background score and good performances from all the actors.

Beautiful ending !

I thoroughly enjoyed it, and i will say this.... If you got passion and u have knowledge then it's a very well made movie.

I "SAW" the movie. Definitely a very good movie to watch. I recommend you watch. The trailer is NOT the same as the movie. The movie is totally different. I don't want to reveal to much but it is about a woman who is being systematically forced to become the mistress of a squire after her husband dies(the squires doings). She resists throws him out of the cottage when he comes to visit her. Enraged and mad in lust at being foiled he spreads false rumors that the woman is a witch. Watch this film to find out what happens next.

Neil Marshall has a cult following with his The Descent 2005 movie, but this I believe is his finest offering.

I entered with high hopes despite apparent poor reception. I like 'Dog soldiers,' and I love 'The descent,' so I'd hardly be doing Neil Marshall any justice if I didn't also give 'The reckoning' an honest try. From a technical standpoint I think the movie is great - the production design is outstanding. Special effects are great, including blood and gore; the costume design is swell; set design is admirable. Though their work is impeccable, I can't say I find the contribution of the hair and makeup departments so readily impressive - Charlotte Kirk looks astonishingly immaculate for being a poor peasant in 17th-century England, which rather runs counter to our suspension of disbelief. Still, I suppose one person or another guided their hands, so the artists themselves can't be faulted.

No few sound themes immediately present as central to the narrative. Men are pigs. Cops are pigs. Landlords are horrible people. Witch hunts are just misogyny taken to its logical extreme. Cleanliness is next to godliness, and godliness worse than devilry. Brainwashing. Beyond this, I regret to say, the screenplay starts to become dubious. In that scene in which protagonist Grace is first accused of witchcraft, the absolute ease with which bystanders second the accusation strains credulity. That's perhaps the best example, but it's not the only one; so much dialogue and scene writing passes with a flawless fluidity that, like Grace's appearance, is perfect as only movie magic can make. All the necessary parts are here, but with a brilliant sheen that betrays artifice.

There are ideas here I genuinely like - the course of events leading to Grace's arrest; her resolve; the hallucinations she experiences. Why, broadly speaking, I think the narrative thrust is suitable. But 'The reckoning' didn't need to be two hours long. The value in the screenplay, and in its execution, is subsumed by a substantial length of what is nothing more than pure, unadulterated hatred of women, made manifest on-screen as bloody torture for its own sake. And it's capped off with a climax that should be invigorating, but again is brought to fruition with such flawlessness in the sequence of events - but also such frenetic editing and camerawork - as to dampen one's excitement.

I wanted to like this. I wanted so much to like this. There's fantastic storytelling potential in the concept, and the screenplay contains a great deal of it. I think the cast turns in great performances, I like Christopher Drake's score, and the film is technically sound. But the movie is also rife with too much unseemly, bloodthirsty torment to be palatable, and a perfection in the story as it is is presented to us that is too far-fetched for even the customary cinematic believability. More than anything else, I'm disappointed.

Alas. 'The reckoning' is still hardly all bad; there are far worse things you could watch. And, again, I think there's so much here that's very worthwhile. But its detracting aspects overwhelm those that would elevate it, and the result isn't nearly as entertaining or satisfying as it should be. There's no reason to seek this out; if you come across it by chance I guess it's marginally enjoyable enough - just be prepared to have the veil of pretense lifted all too harshly.

The more Neil Marshall films I see, the more I'm convinced that Dog Soldiers (2002) and The Descent (2005) were complete flukes. Doomsday was the last film of his I saw which I thought was fairly decent, but unfortunately every effort since then just... isn't good.

The Reckoning has a certain level of competency and interest to it, but ultimately that just causes the film to come across painfully dull and mediocre rather than enjoyably poor. In many ways, this is the worst sin a film can commit. Let's not even start on how perfectly clean and coiffured everyone looked for a film set during the Black Death, or the costume and set design that looked like cosplay at a medieval tourist attraction.

The only real positives I can draw out of this is that some of the cinematography is pretty nice and Sean Pertwee as usual is good, even if his character is fairly cardboard cut-out and moustache twirling (complete with actual moustache).

We can only sit and hope that Marshall manages to recapture the form he displayed at the start of his filmmaking career. If you want some great period horror, watch The VVitch instead.