The Reckoning (2004)

Excellent film with a gripping story!

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

An intriguing morality tale, set in a dirty, grubby-looking version of medieval England. There are shades of HAMLET here in the story of a brutal murder and a group of touring players who reenact the event in a bid to uncover the murderer. The tropes and events that play out are all very familiar, and it's fair to say that the characters are more interesting than the story.Paul McGuigan has assembled an eclectic cast, and it's hard to fault any of the central players. Paul Bettany, as the tormented ex-priest lead, is given the chance to get his teeth into a meaty part, while Willem Dafoe embraces a typically kooky part with real vigour. Brian Cox is all gruff gravitas, Tom Hardy catches the eye as a cross-dresser, and Gina McKee is ever underrated. Watch out for a spellbinding cameo from Vincent Cassel, who can do no wrong.THE RECKONING is a gloomy, doom-laden production, but its realism and focus on the nitty-gritty of human existence gives it the edge over similar-looking but sillier face, like the Hollywood supernatural adventure outing SEASON OF THE WITCH.

The Reckoning was full of great actors, suspense and twists, yet when compared with the original book, 'Morality Play', it doesn't measure up. While there was more drama, the movie didn't remain true to the era it was supposed to be portraying. Even though it was interesting, there were bits of drama that made it much less enjoyable. The main dramatic element was the death of Nicholas at the end of the film. He died trying to do what was right, which was not the greatest ending to the film. There were many more differences between the movie and the book, and while those differences made the film more entertaining, it seemed as if it lost a bit of it's credibility. A big change that shouldn't have been made toward the end of the movie, was when Sarah, (Margaret in the book), was allowed to become part of the ending play. In the book, she was not even allowed to vote on group decisions, let alone be part of a play. This section of the movie wasn't true to the book, it was also untrue to the customs of the Middle Ages. Women were not often valued enough in society to be given formal places in plays or groups. The Reckoning didn't focus enough on the some of the issues that were defining factors of the Middle Ages. One scene actually showed people worried about the plague, which was a huge problem then, but wasn't a significant focus for the rest of the movie. With more focus on the plague, it would have seemed as if it was actually taking place in the Middle Ages. Christianity was a big focus in the book, but not as much in the movie. The majority of people in that era were Christian, yet there was only one main scene that brought Christianity into action. There should have been more time spent focusing on this, as Christianity was one of the biggest influences in that society. It also should have spent more time on describing the corruption of the Church that was occurring. There were priests and monks breaking vows left and right, which seemed to be semi-acceptable! Nicholas admitted practicing adultery, which was laughed off by the players. In the book, there was a priest that had clearly broken his vows, and everyone in the group seemed accepting of his actions. The corruption of the Church is a main component of this story, and in the film it wasn't shown to the extent it could have been. When comparing the book to the movie, the story line and the themes of the book were more effectively articulated, because it remained true to societal norms of the Middle Ages. The book seemed to have a better understanding of what it was supposed to be portraying. It weaved the interesting story lines through the historically accurate Middle Aged world the author had created. It's blend of fiction and the true Middle Ages made the book balanced and enjoyable. The movie focused more on the dramatic elements than the accurate history, which, in turn, took away from the truthfulness of The Reckoning. Overall, I would rate this movie a 6 out of 10, because it was entertaining and intriguing, but lacked historical accuracy.

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.

I enjoyed this movie immensely. The plot surrounds Nicholas, a fugitive priest who has committed a terrible crime(Paul Bettany). He joins up with a troupe of traveling actors led by Martin(Willem Dafoe)and Tobias(Brian Cox). They agree to let him join, and travel to a town in France(??). Upon their arrival, they become aware of the death of a young boy and the woman accused of the crime. It is soon apparent that the woman, Martha (Elvira Minguez) is clearly not guilty, and Nicholas and the other actors try and solve the murder by re-creating it in a play.The plot is so thick and gritty, and filled with twists and turns. The actual events are a bit graphic and overall quite disturbing, and the end breaks my heart. The sets and costumes are more accurate than any Medieval movie I've watched in a while.The acting is simply wonderful, although some normally great actors aren't quite given enough.(Ewen Bremner tries hard and isn't as effective as was intended) Paul Bettany, who started out as a naked,cheeky actor in "A Knight's Tale", gives a simply stunning performance as Nicholas with as much depth and grit as anyone could ask. He's become a favorite of mine and is one of the most underrated and under-appreciated actors of today's times. Willem Dafoe is a joy to watch, as always. He gives a heartfelt (and rather bendy and flexibly) performance. Vincent Cassel is eeeeeevvvviilllll. And damn good at it. Overall, the three principal actors mentioned above are really what carry this intense, suspenseful drama.The film does deal with some tough issues (murder, rape, Christianity among some of them). A lot of people are calling it 'negative'. It is negative. The whole situation is negative. There's not a whole lot of joy in this movie. But the character of Nicholas is not an archetype of all Catholic priests (and I'd certainly hope not). And the movie is actually pretty relevant to somethings happening in today's worlds (RE: rich and powerful people getting away with heinous crimes without any reprimand and how society should do more about it. *coughmichaeljacksoncough*) All in all, I enjoyed this movie a lot and will rent it or buy it to own. **** out of ****