MovieChat Forums > The Reckoning (2004) Discussion > How does McGuigan get actors like this?

How does McGuigan get actors like this?

posted 20 years ago by kal123
23 replies | jump to latest

I just came back from a premiere of this movie in NYC and it was one step above awful. Barely.

I never saw his other films but I am amazed at the calibre of actors he has gotten. Gangster #1 must have been a fantastic movie otherwise I have no idea why Bettany and Dafoe would have agreed to work with him. The pace and dialog were flatter than a pancake. And the plot points were really misplaced, e.g., the scene with the accused woman in the dungeon happened WAY too late. It was at that point I finally became interested, since there was nothing driving the Bettany plot line after the first 5 min.

And unless you have a large enough budget don't bother doing a medieval piece. The sets were real (he said they built them from scratch during an interview afterwards) but it still "felt" like a soundstage.

Anyway, overall it was poorly edited and fairly dull. Which is surprising given the subject matter and the actors.

[–] hormannhaide 20 years ago

You are so right, it is just how I think about the movie. I had high expectations, especially about Paul B., but was downright disappointed. The excellent actors can't cover the bad directing. There were so many unnecessary scenes in this movie (why do we have to see Dafoe half-naked and doing gymnastics? the other actors didn't seem to need to stay smooth), dialogs with no sense that just slowed the movie down rather than add to the plot. And due to the poor focus to the charactars in many key scenes and the overwhelming setting many dialogs and speeches from the priest (especially at the end, when the murderer is revealed to the people of the town) almost run by unnoticed. The whole movie seems to me well meant but not quite achieved. Some scenes are so superbly played and directed, like the first scene and the dialog with Lord de Guise and the Priest in the end (Vincent Cassel is excellent!) and others just put in between with no love of art at all. And the setting - two much reality! It would have been better to just do it in a studio which also adds to the acoustic. The point of the story is not the realistic setting.

Sorry, Paul, but I didn't like it.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] anatja 20 years ago

I just say it last night on DVD, I am also a Paul B. fan and I can't believe how disappointing the film was because as an historical film fan, I think the film had a great deal of potential, the actors are all, great, but the pacing was SO slow I was dozing midway through.

I had to drink even more alcohol to stave off the mind numbing boredom then after it finished, my boyfriend (who chose the vids last night) put on 'Dogville' a film which we knew nothing about, after five minutes I just said to him 'You know I am going to hurt you right??'
Needless to say, I fell asleep not long after.

[–] miss_thing 20 years ago

"There were so many unnecessary scenes in this movie (why do we have to see Dafoe half-naked and doing gymnastics?":
This is the only thing I wish to address from your post.....maybe (and if you had paid attention) you would have seen the tie in to his character with the yoga (not gymnastics) scene. It shows what a tremendous sense of discipline and self-control he has over his body. And one would suppose that he would also have that kind of control voer his mind and emotions as well. He is a well guarded and regimented type of person. To master yoga in this way speaks volumes about a man's character overall. It gives you a brief look at the kind of person he is (this way we don't have lots of scenes to set this point up), we just need the one look in on him to tell us about him as a person.
time saver. :) M

"Damn the Man, Save the Empire!" - Empire Records

[–] jjschueppert 20 years ago

This movie had me from "go". It had a strong story, great directing, wonderful acting, some humor and plenty of "that's horrible!" as in the way things go in the village. I have no idea what you're talking about on this, I understand everybody has an opinion but did you zone out while watching or try breaking it up into intervals? It's a great film, I was knocked aback. I had no diea going in that it was the same director as "Gangster No. 1" and was pleasantly surprised later on.

[–] james-786 20 years ago

I just want to say that i agree with jjscheppert , and if other people think it sucks then they obviously missed the point.
OK, there are no big battles and there is no cast of thousands (or CGI-generated cast of thousands) ,or the usual hero chest-puffing and one-liners. But that is what makes this beautifully shot medieval mystery so interesting.
I loved it , and i keep watching it!

[–] SidathS 19 years ago

I agree totally with jjshueppert -- it was a beautiful film. It is a shame that its subtleties will blow right over the heads of casual film goers. I must also say that the music was very enthralling and held the mood excellently.

[–] carmilla99 20 years ago

Well, ignoring the fact that I loved this film, I have to say that Gangster No. 1 was indeed excellent (IMHO). And even if it hadn't been, it was the film that gave Paul Bettany his first big break - which could well explain why he's happy to work with McGuigan again.

[–] reefer105 20 years ago

did anyone notice Simon pegg and the guy from the Mighty Boosch? Made me laugh. Bettany was brilliant in it, good film one i'll watch again soon!

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SILENCEikillyou 19 years ago

This was an excellent movie. I know it didn't have a lot of the fast-paced action we're used to in many medieval films. It also wasn't polished and cleaned up so as to make it easier to watch or prettier on the eyes. It was REAL. I think it deserves much higher praise than it's receiving on this thread, but I also know I'm not going to change minds. This wasn't supposed to be 'King Arthur' with battles and knights and sword-play. More like play-play. The point of this movie wasn't to throw a thousand fight scenes in to keep you awake. Though, I do like movies like that too. I guess I knew before-hand that this movie was going to be more mind over matter, so I wasn't disappointed in the least.

Here... Is a good-bye present. Go clean. But not with me! I work alone.

~Leon

[–] ahsieh37 19 years ago

amazing acting, esp Marta's character, those eyes (incredible emotion!), everything about her playing of the role was simply superb.

shame that this got zero marketing/publicity, but it's only a matter of time before fans of medieval/mystery discover it, great film (imho), extremely well-executed.

two thumbs up & a bucket of popcorn, too (or I suppose a bowl of hot porridge would be more suitable, hehe)...

[–] grenier_liliane 18 years ago

Well I loved it. I understand why some could find it "boring." But this was psychological and the medieval setting makes it even more interesting.
It is my kind of movie, what can I say. Loved the interaction between the actors, the shots of them getting ready, and yes, the Yoga, the painting of the faces, the nervousness...it was so well done.
Also liked the fact that they really looked and were dressed like regular people of that time. Not all fantasy-like. You could almost smell them.hehe

[–] mcmanmacdeb 17 years ago

So true, grenier liliane. Love your comment about almost being able to smell them. This movie had a real-time pacing; rather slow and dreamlike at times, but it added to the suspense and made the events all the more real as they unfolded. I woke up in the middle of the night and watched this movie; not at all boring; it kept me awake, matter of fact. The odd shots; like DaFoe doing the yoga; and the other somewhat isolated shots; just add to the style of the movie. It was part episodic/part film noir. Not everyones' cup of tea, of course, but valid filmic styles nonetheless. This is not a movie for Braveheart fans; the kinds of moviegoers who like non-stop action and bloody battle scenes. It's more of a thinkers' movie.

[–] mystic1978 18 years ago

As a fan of the Cadfael series, The Name of the Rose, Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, and just about anything Shakespeare, I was thoroughly impressed by The Reckoning. This movie is a brilliant take on the medieval intellectual murder/mystery.

To an extent it was real, with a gritty depressing reality that movie goers have grown accustomed to. However, the exaggerated drama gave it a deeply Shakespearian feel. On that note, I agree with one of the above comments about the movie feeling like it was shot on a sound stage; however, I quickly felt like I was watching a Shakespearian play unfolding on a stage infront of me, but I was being granted the best seat in the house to every scene of the three-dimensional stage.

This film also gave me a fascinating peek at the actors' skills. Most of them, I only know from recent large scale action flicks and haven't had access to or interest in their other works which showcase their wide range of talent. This drama exposed me to something different and giving me a greater appreciation of the actors and their work (even the action flicks).

[–] ArchStanton1862 17 years ago

That's not it. The Medieval era is an extremely interesting one for murder mysteries for some reason. The Brother Cadfael TV Series and The Name of the Rose were two that did it well. The problem with this movie was that it did it badly. It started off quite good setting up the medieval atmosphere and attitudes. Then they had the medieval play which I know almost nothing about but which feels real and doesn't contradict anything I've heard. And then they throw in the murder, almost as an afterthought. Everything about the murder from the circumstances to the reactions just seemed wrong. From then on it went downhill. The woman was just too innocent, a problem with many a mystery novel, and the people covering it up a little too stereotypically sinister. The king's justice and his motivations felt real and he was backed up by an Anakin Sywalker lookalike complete with jedi robe and sulk so that was good. The priest's reaction was completely wrong for the period which was a shame considering how real the movie felt until this point. Instead of harsh people surviving in a harsh world we see everyone become innocent but cowed peasants under the cruel and harsh lord. It came on way too strong and seemed to be from a different movie. The entire ending seemed to come from the clear cut good/bad guy world of King Arthur or suchwhat. The less said about Lord De Guise the better. Apart from the name he came off horrendously cheesy. All he needed was a sweeping cape and fangs and they'd have been in Castle Dracula. All in all it was an excellent medieval drama right up to the point it became a soap opera murder mystery. After that there wasn't much left worth watching apart from the camerawork which was excellant.

[–] Karrie-5 18 years ago

I must say I also totally agree with jjschueppert. I simply loved this movie very much! A lot of things about it impressed me but something that I absolutely LOVED was the way it was shot.. the angles of the shots and the whole composition of the scenes (if you get what I'm talking about). I was especially amazed by the scene towards the end with the conversation between Nicholas and De Guise in the church. When I watch it I feel it, the way the camera is moving around the two getting shots from all angels and then it stops moving at the needed moments; that makes the scene so stirring! It's really beautiful! The whole movie is shot beautifully! But not only that, everything else - the story development, the play of the actors, the setting, the music, everything was wonderful. I must say the whole film is simply -and I can't find a better word - beautiful!

[–] ragreen259 17 years ago

Perhaps you need to contact the studio and tell them about your apparent talent as an editor.

[–] Karrie-5 17 years ago

Are you talking to me?

[–] elenamuti 17 years ago

dha..cos he is an amazing director and well, bettany..after that crap of 6 feet under and da vinci code, I dont think he can afford to chose...I mean..this is well over his standards...Defoe...ahah..oh yes, hes famous to chose good movies eh?mr bean..spider man..shadow of the vampire...speed 2...wow! those are great movies.please.just listen to urself.I mean..the actors are good but they always chose *beep* movies.over. on the other hand hes a great director. watch slevin, that is an AMAZING movie. and gangster N1 is really good.

[–] mattchanning 17 years ago

It's been a while, but I remember really liking this movie. I liked the characters, and the writers seem to have done their homework regarding the shape of theater during the time depicted. It also offers, contextually, an explanation of why actors are historically not well-regarded socially.

It also was an exciting depiction of a time when you didn't necessarily have to have evidence to convince large numbers of superstitious, ignorant people of something completely untrue...

...a little like today, actually....

Matt Channing
Oscar quality film music at bargain basement prices.