PoppyTransfusion The film pairs the director Paul McGuigan with lead actor Paul Bettany once more; Bettany was the star, though not the lead name, of McGuigan's 2000 film 'Gangster No 1', Bettany's breakthrough role.Set in medieval/feudal times the film's plot pits the poor people, the serfs, against the noble elite, the lords. The conviction of a woman, set to be hanged, for the murder of a boy is the backdrop to a travelling group of actors of the Royal Court arriving in the hamlet to stage their uninspired morality plays based on scenes from the Bible. In their midst is a priest (Bettany), who is on the run for a crime of his own. Inspired by the murder the actors decide to stage a play of their own creation. Their enactment leads to the discovery that the condemned woman is not guilty of the murder. What follows is a series of reckonings in which there is an ultimate reckoning for the priest.The film cast is an eclectic one (American, British and Spanish) with many well known and fine actors. Not all are well employed though Bettany, Dafoe (dodgy regional English accent aside) and Elvira Minguez (who plays the wrongfully convicted mute Martha) give strong performances. Bettany and Minguez are especially good, playing their respective roles with passion and emotion. For any Bettany fan this is highly recommended as he does what he does best - look beautiful whilst combining cynicism with earnestness.The mood and feeling of the medieval period, sometimes described as the dark ages, is really well captured and there is a strong sense of austerity, chilliness and mystery/menace throughout. The director uses lighting well: an early scene, illustrative of this, shows Bettany cutting his hair to rid him of the emblematic hairstyle of a priest. A blue filter is used conveying ice and water metaphors for the cold existence of a priest now cast out. Moments like this make the film quite compelling viewing.The film is rather ambitious trying to show religious collusion with corrupt politics, man's struggle with God, injustice, the lot and politics of being an actor in this era as well as ordinary moral torments. It possibly would have been more effective if the director had focused on just one of these themes.I can imagine this gaining cult status in time not least for the scenes in which Dafoe practises Ashtanga Yoga poses.

user-923-774441 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.

oldgirl 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.

ayn5242 I really like Paul Bettany and Dafoe is either wonderful or awful depending on the role, but always worth watching. I also think Barry Unsworth, author of the book on which this film was based, is a superb writer. So when I came across this movie, I was anxious to see it, and in some ways it did not disappoint.It was well acted. Paul and Dafoe were both good, and the supporting players were convincing. The script was weak, however. The villain was so heinous he was almost a cartoon and the motives of our hero (Bettany's character) we muddled at best. And although the villagers certainly looked like I would imagine 14th century serfs would look, they seemed to have enough leisure time to worry about social injustice and working together for a better life (when they were not searching for roots and twigs, no doubt).It would have been a far more interesting movie if it had concerned itself with the trials and travails of the traveling players instead of trying to be an action/suspense film.