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.

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.

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.

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.

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.