User Reviews

I like history. Sometimes I read it. Sometimes I watch documentaries. And occasionally, a movie with enough realism to keep my addiction satisfied at the same time I'm entertained will surface. From the descriptions I read of Shadow of the Sword, I had some small hope it might be one of those movies. You can't imagine how delighted I was when that turned out to be the case.

In the Europe of the 1500's, the Catholic Church was almost literally all powerful. It was involved in every facet of every life, from the ceremonial to the governmental to the day-by-day. It's only natural that the church — for both reasons of charity as well as the replenishment of the priesthood — would take charge of orphaned boys. Martin and Georg are two such children. Raised together and raising hell together, the two are close friends until they day they're old enough to be separated into training for their adult responsibilities.

Georg (Peter McDonald) is taken by the Archbishop (John Shrapnel) where he is groomed to return to his home town as the prior of the local monastery. Meanwhile, Martin (Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau) becomes a soldier for the empires and achieves the rank of captain. After some fifteen years apart, Martin finds himself camped near his former home and he takes the opportunity to visit his old friend. The two men are delighted to see each other and spend a few hours catching up.

Martin, however, has one more errand he to run. He's been wounded in the fighting and needs medical care. After a brief chance meeting in the village, Martin discovers a pretty local girl named Anna (Anastasia Griffith) who, among other things, is reputed to be a witch and a healer. When Martin visits her in her remote home, he discovers two things: he loves her, and her father is the local executioner. The former is difficult at best since he's got to leave with his troops in the morning. The latter is almost as much of a problem since executioners are considered untouchable by the rest of the citizens.

Eventually, Martin is released from his duties and he returns to Anna only to find that her father has died. With little else for which he's qualified, Martin reluctantly takes over as executioner and soon finds himself a very busy man. The Catholic Church has virtually no tolerance for dissent, and punishments are harsh at best. Things only get worse when the Archbishop demands that Georg tighten up his control of the local populace and leaves an Inquisitor (Steven Berkhoff) behind to ensure that that's what happens.

Soon enough, the old friends are caught up in a battle of conscience, fear, and power that can only partly be solved by getting to the bottom of their own secret past. But time is short, betrayal looms, and failure means banishment or death for them and those they love.

The casting in Shadow of the Sword is excellent. You believe in Martin's strength and courage even as you entirely buy into Georg's innate piety. While that has something to do with the look of the men chosen to fill these roles, it's primarily due to the fact that Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau and Peter McDonald are very capable actors, the former in particular. Anastasia Griffith holds her own and John Shrapnel is terrific every time he's on screen, but my pick for most impressive performance comes from Julie Cox in a relatively small but pivotal role as the prostitute Margaretha.

The script was quite good, and the sets, costumes, and make-up effects were even better. The only real complaint I have about Shadow of the Sword involves a number of terribly jarring edits. I suspect these were made in an effort to lower the running time (almost two hours), but too many were too careless. I would have much preferred to have a longer movie. Besides, since what I saw was pretty good, I can only imagine that much of what I didn't see was pretty good, too.

The bottom line: Shadow of the Sword isn't perfect. But it's interesting and entertaining, and that's plenty. I liked this movie, and those with an interest in drama, history, or both will find something there for them, too.

POLITICAL NOTES: Even Catholics will likely confess that the church isn't always right. But it's rarely been more wrong than it was during the course of the Crusades and the later Inquisition. The Catholic Church has obviously mellowed and learned from some of its mistakes. But it's apparent that not everybody has. It seems that the word "crusade" and all of its inherent evils can be crudely translated as being synonymous with "jihad."

The fundamentalist Islam war on everybody who isn't a Muslim has nothing and everything in common with what the church did so long ago, and certainly Shari'a has an appalling amount in common with the techniques of the Inquisition we now so roundly condemn. Shadow of the Sword shows both the politics and the lust for control behind such campaigns all too clearly, and the graphic results offer up some lessons we'd do well to continue to remember today.

FAMILY SUITABILITY: Shadow of the Sword is rated R for "violence and a scene of sexuality." This is not a movie I'd recommend your children see. Some scenes of torture, while not gratuitous, are quite graphic and more than a little difficult to watch. The subject matter is also likely beyond the understanding of younger kids. I'd recommend Shadow of the Sword only for those age 14 or so and up. I'd also recommend that, if you and your family do see the movie, you have a little conversation afterward about just what religious fanaticism means for the fate of freedom, and that you do your best to take those lessons to heart!

Shadow of the Sword is a good film with an interesting and different story that paints a picture of the Catholic Church and its cruel inquisition.

However, it doesn't give much of an understanding of those who were being persecuted, the Anabaptists (or other groups that are mentioned without being explained). It would have been a clear improvement if we were given a deeper portrayal of especially the Anabaptists as well as the other main characters.

The film should have been a little longer to give these better descriptions. It has a lot of good parts, but it is missing some depth in its character descriptions. The story is quite gripping and strong and it is a great period piece, but it lacks some depth and should give the viewer a better understanding of the background and develop the characters more.

This movie gave me whiplash. It started off with about a History Channel Reenactment quality, then got pretty good through the middle, and then ended like an average B-Movie. I feel like the main issue was editing, there were moments where I laughed out loud. Like when the dude's life flashed before his eyes and they threw in a clip of the sex scene from earlier in the movie (a "we're definitely using that again" moment). I was expecting a movie more sympathetic to the church, but I liked the angle they took instead. Berkoff was doing some Star Trek bad guy acting, Coaster-Waldau was pretty good, and Eddie Marsen is always a pleasure.

All right. The movie being a movie has got to make money for the team that made it. It serves that purpose, only. And as such it is rather mediocre. Why would I say that? Well, because the reality it is trying to convey to us was 100,000 times worse. Because no movie would ever approach the banality of horror that was everyday life in the dark ages of history. Yes, I have such high standards. Sorry. However. This movie is yet another (among countless) that show how the religiosity is being a scrounge of human race. From the dawn of time to the modernity. I do not hold my breath that within my lifetime (whatever has left of it) this plague will go away never to return. Because it must be something somatic. Some gland malfunction on a protein level that makes men and women identify themselves with in a supernatural entity being in fashion of worshiping at the time in a given place. From this point, they are willing to violate all rules and laws - lie, steal, degrade, and kill - all for the glory of an imaginary dude in the sky. Or "everywhere".

Just out of purely statistical evidence, accounting for millenia of the history of human civilization - one must conclude that religion is a disease of the brain, a medical condition - and NOT necessarily psychiatric - that is a danger to the fabric of civilization itself, now and more so in the future. I only hope that someone somewhere is working on a cure. And please do yourself a favor by watching this movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Or Executioner's odyssey, this rather accurate history tale where action packed scenes are not priority but instead a good character depiction. Good settings, production design, some kind of details which you may find in most of series related to middle age period. Above most of Eastern Europe historical movies, submerged with CGI effects and lousy acting and directing. I did not see such a good picture since FLESH AND BLOOD, but Paul Verhoeven's film was more bloody and brutal. The common between those two features are the accuracy, though I am not a historian. But I am sure that most history buffs will be delighted to watch this film. Not so many movies were dedicated to heretic eras.

I saw the film yesterday and stopped it at half time because I felt it was a waste of time. The idea to make a film through the eyes of a headsman - one of the "evil guys" throughout most fantasy and medieval films - is great and offers plenty of possibilities but... the film couldn't catch one of them. I was not feeling for any of the characters, the plot was all too predictable (to the point that I followed it)and the second leap of time in the storyline made me quit. Those who expect a deep insight into the emotional situation of a headsman in the middle Ages, a social outcast to that time, might be disappointed.

This had the promise of being an interesting film. The subject matter was certainly a promising one - the excesses of the Catholic Church during the counter-reformation. However, not only was this not developed (other than a two paragraph introduction), many things were not explained - i.e. the gypsies, the Anabaptists, the inquisitors and their relationship to the one true church. Nor were the politics of the time explained, i.e. the relationship between the Catholic church and its supporters like the Holy Roman Emperor. Though these may have been apparent to an Austrian audience, the lack of explanation makes it confusing for Americans.

But perhaps it's a good thing that they didn't emphasize the history since what they showed was pretty inaccurate anyway. Instruments of torture, bloody executions, witch and heretic burnings, big shiny swords and pretty golden reliquaries are the stars of the film. It could have just as easily been one of those Conan-type sword and sorcery movies, only with period costumes...

I got this movie to watch without any preconceived ideas at all, no reviews to consider, but a good IMDb rating.

The intro scene caught my attention and helped set the mood and character of the two leading roles for further into the movie.

I liked the level of detail and griminess that would have been appropriate at that time and the overall setting both inside and outside the town. I'd say this was perhaps more realistic and less Hollywood than other similar period movies, such as perhaps Braveheart.

Particularly, the feeling of social exclusion for a looked down upon yet 'approved' role was quite interesting, especially in comparison to the punishable 'unapproved' yet socially acceptable roles.

Overall, this movie is one that I'd recommend and will likely watch again.

What are the other reviewers on? This film is a stinker from start to finish.Terrible script,awful soundtrack and a load of actors who all looked as if they would rather be somewhere else. It looked good, if gurning extras with dirtied up medieval teeth and slopping about in rags is how you picture the middle ages. Cliché after cliché,more plot holes than a Swiss cheese,It leaps through time faster than H.G Wells,one review said it was to make it shorter,they wanted to inflict more of this on us?,all this AND Steven Berkoff! Even he found the scenery not appetising enough to chew. I always watch films until the end, I wanted to turn this off after about ten minutes.Even my 12 year old son thought it bad and he has no discrimination whatsoever! Just say NO, go and wash some dishes or fill in a tax return!

I love historical films, even the bad ones. But this movie is one of the best. It hits the dark and depressing atmosphere in the shadow of the all-mighty catholic church well. The acting is on a high level by all actors, especially Coaster-Waldau and McDonald. Coaster-Waldau seems to be getting more and more to a main actor in movies. After seeing him alongside Bettany (another shooting star) in Wimbledon and Firewall, I was expecting a lot. And I was not disappointed. But I was most surprised by McDonald, never heard of him before, and his acting as a troubled prior torn between his duty and friendship.

So if you want to see a great movie set in the middle-ages, buy or rent both "The Reckoning" and "The Headsman".

The actors played very well, the atmosphere was very sharp, so they got the feel right. I remember reading the Name of the Rose and noticing that the movie failed to mention almost anything about the religious background of the story from the book. When watching The Headsman, I felt like they presented more of that background in detriment of the story which felt a bit rushed. But, after all, some viewers actually complained about too little information regarding the Anabaptists so I guess the movie actually showed the actions, rather than the background, just as the Name of the Rose movie.

Bottom line: it was a good script. It would have probably been better as a miniseries and with a slightly different ending, but it was a story worth knowing. You should be warned about some torture and pure human stupidevil scenes.

This movie is alright, but it could be a lot better. The majority of the film is excellent, with good camera angles and good acting, but near the very end a very cheap trick is used to show the passage of time that just made me want to kick the director. I am not revealing any spoilers, worry not.

The story could be stronger as well, with more developed characters. By the end of the film, I feel I barely know any of the characters. The film seems slightly rushed, and could have been plenty longer. The beginning especially could use some work, it also is rushed.

Overall, I've heard it is accurate, but accuracy doesn't make a great film.

The Headsman is a much better film than most of the IMDb ratings and reviews here. One problem is that people want to be entertained in a medieval film and having swordplay, gore, special effects, a princess and a hero all help. This film doesn't have that. One reviewer compared it with The Name of the Rose and it definitely falls into that category.

There really isn't much intrigue, however, and that would have made it a better film. It is more about the honor of Martin (Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau) who has a childhood friendship with Georg (Peter McDonald), marries an outcast (Anna played by Anastasia Griffith) and chooses an untouchable professional as an executioner. It is about human nature: betrayal, love, ambition, greed, honor, and the dilemmas that come when forces beyond one's control affects one's life and one is faced with undesirable choices.

Forces of good and evil are at battle as mistrust, superstition, crudeness and naivety dominate the Inquisition period. Not everything is within control but Martin lives honorable and his friend Georg does too but at times is torn by his conscience and what the town leaders and Inquisition ask him to do.

Unfortunately, Martin is unaware that Georg is willing to help but his hands are tied. Sadly no one questions the despicable, filthy Fabio (Eddie Marsan) about the truth although it certainly would made sense. But perhaps that makes heroes in the film, an outcome not preferred. And in those times, witches and heretics were hanged, executed or burned. Reason wasn't the norm but fear and superstition ruled. No heroes, things beyond our control, love and suffering. Even being the daughter of the emperor or son of the archbishop doesn't save anyone. For comparison, the Black Death nor Inquisition spared no one of title.

In the historical context, it's a graphically accurate film, not a Hollywood-type film (e.g, Braveheart). The set and acting were excellent. Cinematography and atmosphere were good, although I would have preferred sharper camera work and use of the landscape. But perhaps being low-budgeted, the filming was limited. Script was reasonable but could be stronger. Since reality isn't as dramatic as fantasy, this movie won't excite many unless you like a thoughtful period drama.

How make a rare movie on low budge and receiving a best reviews from the best critics, this picture means all that, set place on dark ages when the evil spanish inquisition were the latest word to decide without mercy the people's fate over own point of view, blasphemers, witchcraft were their target, the Catholic church rules under heavy hand mainly by spanish radical wing and how everywhere such power were dreaded, the story is told by eyes's a former warrior who falling in love with a daughter of the headman, after that he has to replace him by right after his sudden death, Mongs's monastery, City's mayor and Archbishop trembled when a spanish inquisitor was sent to solve by power the insurgents by any means, a true near masterpiece over such gloomy period of our past!!

Resume:

First watch: 2012 / How many: 2 / Source: DVD / Rating: 8.5