The Last Duel’s historical epic loaded with (non-CGI) action was heavily marketed to classic Hollywood fans that primarily consists of an older audience, and this is the demographic that has yet to truly return to cinemagoing. The Last Duel’s opening weekend ticket buyer demographics featured only 2 percent under the age of 18, 17 percent under the age of 25, and more than 80 percent of its audience was over the age of 25 (via THR). Despite the fact that very few tickets were sold, the overriding majority of them were sold to older audience members, with a seemingly minuscule allotment to the under 25s. Even with 80% of tickets accounted for by over 25s (and a demographic that is likely older still, in reality), that doesn't amount to a great deal and shows the problem of marketing to a group who don't want to come out to the cinema. The audience split confirms the marketing would be smart in an ordinary world, but cinema is not one at the minute. source: The Last Duel’s Box Office Failure Proves Streaming Isn’t The Real Villain
I haven't followed the marketing, but I did notice (just saw it this afternoon) that I was (at age 48) what looked to be the youngest person there. There were maybe 8-10 other people, and they all looked to be senior citizens.
So, studios are gonna make even more CGI heavy, super hero, non plot driven, oohh aahhh look at the explosion stuff for the foreseeable future.
I'm thinking that afternoon showings are normally heavy with the oldsters. The younger adults come at night or weekend matinees. It's not a kids movie for sure.
4K/Blu coming out Dec 14 The Last Duel 4K Blu-ray 20th Century Studios has officially announced that it will release on 4K Blu-ray and Blu-ray Ridley Scott's The Last Duel (2021), starring Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck, Jodie Comer, and Marton Csokas. The two releases will be available for purchase on December 14. Studio description: Jodie Comer is spellbinding in this tale of betrayal and vengeance set in 14th century France from visionary filmmaker Ridley Scott. Based on actual events, the film stars Matt Damon and Adam Driver as friends Jean de Carrouges and Jacques Le Gris, two knights who must fight to the death after de Carrouges's wife (Comer) accuses Le Gris of assault. Special Features and Technical Specs: DOLBY ATMOS AUDIO TRACK The Making of The Last Duel – With the documentary "The Making of The Last Duel," get unprecedented access to renowned director Ridley Scott as he collaborates with the cast and crew to make critical decisions about location, cinematography and performances. Blu-ray audio: English DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 Optional English SDH, Spanish, and French subtitles for the main feature
I totally agree with you Greg and we had the same feeling watching the movie. Even right at the begining there were poorly structured flashbacks/fast forwards that had us looking at each other and wondering if there was a glitch in the projection room. The three chapter idea doesn't work at all because the fine differences of viewpoint aren't enough to justify it. This could have been a fantastic epic movie if Scott had just let the story run in a linear fashion rather than trying to be clever. That said, once all that ridiculous mush is out of the way and we get to Madame de Carrouge's testimony it finally gets on the right track and the last act is good - although what is missing at the very end is a dialogue exchange between two of the main protagonists (without giving anything away). It is well cast and it's the first time I've liked an Adam Driver and Ben Affleck performance . Jody Comer is brilliant.
True story. The three versions of the rape scene was unnecessary, no nudity involved.. so shouldn’t offend….once would have sufficed. Wouldn’t have minded more mud/Forrest / fighting .. action scenes per se. Rewatching won’t be as rewarding.
Thank you. I think this is a new approach for Scott. I can't remember any other film where he tried to get this fancy with the timeline. Having to see the rape scene 3 times was especially unjustified. The scene only slightly changed each time and there was absolutely no reason to put the audience through it again and again just to try to adhere to the belabored 3-part exposition. I liked how Damon's character was shown to be a dim bulb who further victimized his wife. He's very good at playing thick-skulled types. Seems his niche. Just as Driver seems to excel in a preening, ambitious type who doesn't care about anyone but himself. Begs the question if they're really acting. Scott cast all the parts very well.
I thought the subtle (and not so subtle) differences in the 3 view points are at the heart of the motivation of each character and therefore the message of the movie.
I just finished watching this. It was a beautiful, mess of a movie. For the life of me, I can't figure out exactly how the admission price was extracted from me. It is possible that I willingly gave it to Ridley, in fair exchange for the pleasure of seeing the movie. Or possibly the admission pride was extracted me as a tax would be --- so it is given, but not so willingly as in the first scenario. And yet it is possible that the admission price was extorted from me, and I had no choice in the matter whatsoever. Whatever the case, I have started a GoFundMe for Sir Jean de Carrouges, to pay for plastic surgery on his right check. It was so deeply rutted as to look like ancient canals on the surface of Mars. And should the GoFundMe be wildly successful, I will pay a blacksmith to make him a damn helmet with a right cheek guard. The perils of many battles wearing only a helmet with only left-sided face protection are evident for all to see.
Yeap, as others said, the retelling of the same/similar story 3 times was just too much. The movie had great potential, but I've seen this once, I'll probably never revisit it again because in my mind I've seen it 3 times already. I like these medieval films, and a good one rarely comes along now. Great actors all round, but just an average film.
Yes, I thought that was probably the most interesting aspect, but it doesn't feel like it has been used to its fullest potential. Most differences are probably too subtle so we need to watch it again to pick up on them, but the biggest difference was how Matt Damon sees himself as opposed to how others see him. To be honest, I don't understand why people exclude Damon's performance from praise. At least he played a character that is very atypical for him, while Driver came off being Driver.
I saw this in the theater upon release, but rented from Redbox last week to watch again. And one difference I'm not sure I noticed the first time was that in Le Gris's version of the rape, Margueritte was giggling a bit when he grabbed her and threw her on the bed. Of course in her version there is no giggling. But it fits wit how in his mind he sees all of it as just fair play seduction. A separate question - do you think Jean de Carrouges mother's was INTENTIONALLY complicit in the rape? On another forum I've seen some posters suggest that the mother actually planned it ahead of time with Le Gris. Not sure I can quite get there. I think of her leaving the estate and taking all the servants as more of a bitchy power move over Margueritte, who she clearly did not like.
Good observation. BTW, I had to be pounded on the head to see the movie. It did NOT look interesting or good from all the marketing. And it bombed. Finally saw it because of all the love/hate reviews. Thought it was an amazing movie. Fantastic. I do want to see it again despite the length (now that I know where it is all headed, I want to pick up second-view little bits like you have).
I thought it was a great movie. Interesting characters with the two key protagonists flawed, but one significantly more than the other. The battle sequences were outstanding-some of the best filmed. Short and brutal.
I saw this and liked it, but can understand it not being a hit. It asks the audience to pay enough attention to notice the differences between the three narratives and to care about those differences. Sometimes the differences are as subtle as who actually says the conciliatory line when they meet after the accusations become public, or who smiled at whom first. I also liked that neither duellist was a saint in his own narrative, but the other was an ogre. The third narrative is presumably closest to the truth. Someone more observant than me pointed out the title card for the third act held onto the word "truth" after the rest of the verbiage had faded. The final duel is suitably bloody and protracted. I suspect in real life the two exhausted themselves sooner but it stops before becoming ridiculous. JOHN WICK, it's not.
I agree with everything you said, but don't think you guys factored in the issue of pacing. It severely impacted the film to have to go back again and again and retell the story. Everyone understands that different characters have different perspectives but unless there is something revelatory in those differences, why belabor it? There was ultimately no reason, as you acknowledge the last version is the truth, much common ground was seen in each retelling, and differences were often minor or subtle. The first time we went back and retold the story, I was mildly annoyed. The second time I actually had fatigue. I shifted in my seat and rolled my eyes. Why not use the immense resources that went into the film to tell the story linearly in a way that makes for riveting pacing throughout? Without having to cover old ground again and again, scenes could have been included and extended to strengthen the characters' positions in ways the retellings danced around by having to spend so much time on areas already covered. Then it could build toward the fight with proper development. This film was not even close to Scott's best.
I find the demographic breakdown interesting, at least as shown in your post. Three groupings. Under 18. 14-18 are the likely group to go see a movie like this, 13 and under don't care, and basically the 16-18 year olds are the ones who may have a bit of money and ability to get to the movies on their own anyway....the vast majority of them likely need some sort of parental permission, and transport, and financing, to go in the first place. 19-25 year olds. A relatively small slice of the overall population who are the most likely to be active on some level, involved with something, and generally busy going about learning how to be adults. Going to the movies is but one of thousands of things they have to choose from, and relatively expensive at that when compared to what they can stream on the already paid for service.....they will wait. 25 and up. The rest of the population. No wonder it is the biggest chunk on the audience.
