I worked on nine or ten Ridley Scott films. Whenever we were mixing a film he was always getting his next one in order. I forget what we were mixing (Black Hawk Down?). Ridley said he was thinking of doing a western next, "I think I'd do one rather well." We all heartily agreed. He was specifically talking about an historically and geographically accurate remake of "The Searchers". Sadly never happened ...
I saw this in the theater today and felt it missed the mark. Much of the problem is that it set up the ending at the beginning and then went back and showed, linearly, three versions of the story nearly from beginning to end--the first from the perspective of the Matt Damon character, the second from Adam Driver's character and the third from Jodie Comer's character. This completely destroyed the pacing and intrigue of the film during the first half. I'd say 90% of the content of each perspective was identical and the diverging 10% did not justify seeing so much redundancy. The irony is that the story is actually very interesting. It should have been told linearly from an omniscient perspective. The pacing would have worked infinitely better. By the time the gauntlet is thrown down and we catch up with the setup shown at the beginning, Scott has regained a bit of pacing and suspense. Even better, the actual duel to the death is done very well and pays off the story that came before. It was just the labored handling of the three perspectives that held back the film. My only other complaint: the look and feel was a bit too dark and grim, but it was the dark ages after all.
Just back from the cinema having just seen The Last Duel with my daughter. We both enjoyed it very much. Seeing the story told from the different perspectives of the three main characters was interesting and the brutal battle scenes were great. Highly recommended. Can't wait now for Sir Ridley's take on the Napoleanic wars which I think he's filming next.
Just saw it too. It's especially unique to me as back in summer 2019, I interviewed Sir Ridley about Duellists for Premiere magazine. After talking about his first film, I suggested the idea was too good to remain just one film, and why not try another with different characters? Sir Ridley lighted up and pitched me a new "Duel" film version thematics off the cuff on the spot. He said he would think seriously about it. Later on, he asked me for a complete translation of the interview, and I even got a compliment email back. 6 months later he was shooting it! When he strikes a good idea, he gets it out rolling right away, find a subject/screenplay, and get it done. That's incredible.
Yeah, he's got House of Gucci releasing in December, kit Bag (the Napoleanic film) starts shooting soon and he apparently has another one ready to start as soon as that's finished. Long may he continue.
There's no age limit. There's a creativity vitality limit. Some filmmakers lose it over the first ten years and 3 or 4 films, then ham it up for the rest of their lives. Classic second album syndrome. Not Sir Ridley because he started making film late (after 40), so he accumulated a lot of life experience before being all film. My mistake, I interviewed him in summer 2018 and he announced the film in summer 2019. COVID suspension of time got me confused.
Let’s not idolize the man too much here. He made his fair share of duds. The way he changed direction with Alien Convenant comes to mind. But the man knows his craft. No doubt still one of the best around today.
Agreed, he had an amazing opportunity to make a masterpiece and failed miserably with Covenant. He should have abandoned it the moment Rapace refused to reprise her role as Shaw. Some further insights here. Alien: Covenant: Noomi Rapace's Original Role Revealed I'm not enamored with Last Duel, either. The three "viewpoints" aren't divergent enough to justify arranging the film this way, which wrecked the pacing. I always say, if a filmmaker can't figure out how to show the story linearly and can't justify how diverging from linearity is better, then don't make the film. In the end, the three viewpoints held no sway over the ending. It was an unnecessary device. When Scott gets things right, they are so right. But it's been frustrating to be his fan since I saw Alien in the theater more than 40 years ago.
I saw this at the cinema yesterday. Very good. Though you need a tolerance for screen sex, sexual violence and brutal hand to hand combat in the 14th Century. Not to mention a tolerance for a disturbing medieval mullet. I thought it handled the sexual politics well. Key scene is where he comes back from the wars and his wife tells him she's been raped. After chewing over his anger for a few minutes and manhandling her, he proceeds to rape her himself. Women didn't get a good life in those days. The only positive thing about being a woman was you didn't get involved in all that fighting. Scott's The Duellists had the same brutal realism about the combat, though set some centuries later.
I thought the narrative device worked. I wasn't aware the film was so long, which is slways a good sign - I was engrossed. Significantly, the 3 versions of events had as many similarities as differences, which is sort of what the film was pointing at - the sexual politics of the era affected everyone and went largely unchallenged.
If anything The Last Duel showed that it's possible for a movie to "bomb" despite having all-star credentials, solid-great reviews from critics & fans. Total worldwide box office to date is only $18.2 million ($9 million of the total is domestic). RT - 85% critics - 81% moviegoers IMDB - 7.7/10 Cinemascore - B+
I get that--and I think most people get it. We don't call it "the dark ages" for nothing. Women's rights wasn't a thing. And everyone understands that victims have much different perspectives than aggressors in rapes. Everyone understands that different characters can see things differently, and it absolutely can go without saying that a husband would see things differently than someone who assaults his wife, who would see things differently yet. You don't need 3 retellings in a single movie--covering most of the same ground each time, including the rape scene--to pay that off. It was laborious to watch and could have been handled more efficiently and with greater detail, accuracy and pacing, if it went in a linear manner from an omniscient perspective. That's the basis of storytelling and movies since the earliest examples of books and film. No need to mess with it for the sake of messing with it. I'm glad you enjoyed the pacing of it. Maybe I'll try again someday and have a better appreciation. As I said, the last half of the movie was far better than the first half because the expository method wasn't so belabored and with the 3rd and final perspective being the wife's, you felt you were getting closer to the real story.
