The Last Duel new film from Ridley Scott

a little something ... on Driver, an interesting celeb for sure.

adam driver - my journey from marine to actor


ymmv

 

i agree.

the whole 'rashomon' format of the film should really inform the viewer as to what this film is very MUCH about ....

Rashomon - Wikipedia

"
Allegorical and symbolic content[edit]
The film depicts the rape of a woman and the murder of her samurai husband through the widely differing accounts of four witnesses, including the bandit-rapist, the wife, the dead man (speaking through a medium), and lastly the woodcutter, the one witness who seems the most objective and least biased. The stories are mutually contradictory and even the final version may be seen as motivated by factors of ego and saving face. The actors kept approaching Kurosawa wanting to know the truth, and he claimed the point of the film was to be an exploration of multiple realities rather than an exposition of a particular truth. Later film and television use of the "Rashomon effect" focuses on revealing "the truth" in a now conventional technique that presents the final version of a story as the truth, an approach that only matches Kurosawa's film on the surface....."

 

I'm putting together a collection of Ridley's films - used. I haven't seen The Duellists or Exodus: Gods and Kings, though I have them. I don't need to revisit Matchstick Men or Thelma & Louise any time soon, though. I like his historical epics, whether they work or not - looking forward to The Last Duel.

 

Perhaps the pacing helps when you watch it over 2 nights, like I did! For the top notch pedigree revolving around this project, I expected a lot better. I'm not sorry I watched it but I don't see myself sitting through it again.

 

nice drama, the last few minutes were very intense. I liked it, but not as much as Gladiator

 

The jury was out for a while on his acting chops, but finally returned a verdict. Not good.

 

Watched this in 4k the other day. I was at first put off by Damon and Affleck, after a bit I didn't care. Visually Sir Ridley has it in spades. I agree not as great as Gladiator ( a near perfect film). I still enjoyed it's Rashomon aspect. The devil is in the details as always. Adam Driver is starting to grow on me, I thought he did pretty good. Matt Damon was really the star here. Best performance from him in a while.
In 4k this film is really absorbing, first blind buy for me in years. Now if the studio would just release a 4k of "Kingdom of Heaven" I would be very pleased.

Scott is one of the few directors working who immediately gets my attention. Scorsese, Gibson and Eggars are also in this group.

 

About Kingdom of Heaven, I was underwhelmed by the film, partially because I'm into history, but also the film in general. I'm guessing you've seen the directors version, do you find it that much better and coherent?

 

I saw the original theatrical release and the Director's cut. While historically not accurate the movie is great IMO. I tend to close my eyes to most historical inaccuracies in films. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to watch them. The only time it REALLY bugs me is when they introduce something or someone to appeal to a specific demographic that wasn't part of the story at all. Aside from those insertions I do enjoy historical dramas.
I did find the Director's cut much more fulfilling than the original theatrical version. My biggest gripe was and always will be Orlando Bloom, same thing with "Troy". Just don't see him as a Knight from the Crusades.
FWIW movies like "KoH" tend to push me into delving into those histories of actual events. But history is written by the victorious, so I tend to view it with a jaundiced eye.

 

Finally saw this last night. I think Ridley Scott needs to watch "Rashomon" again and pick up on the point that the film tells THREE DIFFERENT versions of a story. In this film, I felt like I was watching "Groundhog Day" since he basically told the SAME STORY three times, with one or two barely noticeable differences - which made for a long and tedious viewing, leading to the inevitable sword-swinging climax to try and make up for two hours of middling drama. Thank God there were only three versions of the same story told (the same way), I would rather have been burned at the stake than watch the same story again. Ridiculous that even in Adam Driver's story he makes himself out as a rapist. What was the point of the whole Roshomon structure then? What a washout.

And including a repetitive script and with putrid dialog, the multitude of bad and weird accents (Ben Affleck seems to have created one entirely his own), crappy acting with another barely passable Matt Damon performance (I really bought him as French Knight), lead actress Jodi Comer's strangely bizzare facial expressions throughout the film (she seems to have gone to the Elizabeth Holmes school of bug-eyed waifishness,) and a cardboard bene gesserit mother-in-law, this quickly dashed off #metoo parable, was draggy as Le Gris body on the way to the scaffold.

 

Saw this recently. Not nearly as good as Kingdom of Heaven.
As others have pointed out, three very similar versions of the story, it drags. After sitting through two versions, I was not happy to see another chapter. Really?
Damon was OK, Driver good and Comer very good. But Ben Affleck was pretty bad, his performance would have worked great in a Monty Python film.
Overall it was boring, but it did look great.

 

Same here. No, not again...

 

I despair for the modern cinema viewer if you thought that the differences between the versions were "barely noticeable" or even remotely subtle...

But as for Adam Driver's version making himself out to be a rapist, it is true that a modern viewer is meant to see it that way. But part of the film is about exposing how medieval courtly culture considered interactions that we would now recognize as rape to be consensual. Driver's testimony during the trial makes this explicit (he says something like "she made the customary protests"). In her version of the story, her protests are far more extensive. It does requite some degree of historical literacy to recognize the differences between the tellings, I guess.

 

I think that's the common criticism out there. I don't think that equates with not having "some degree of historical literacy ", which goes without saying. But overall it seems to have cut the mustard, judging by reviews. I haven't seen it, maybe I've been sword and shielded out for now.

 

It probably was too subtle, just like Ridley Scott was too subtle, or not explicit enough, when he suggested Deckard is a replicant in the original release of Blade Runner.

 

I saw it when it came out so I have no excuse, but after seeing how universally this movie has been panned, why would anyone bother? It's THAT bad!

 

Only, The Last Duel has not been universally panned, far from it.

 

Except by audiences. A whooping $10m at the box office. They probably made more than that on Dr. Strange commemorative Slurpee cups.

 

I'm sure if The Last Duel was about superheroes it would have drawn a larger audience to the theaters.

 

I think the movie is excellent. I watched it again, streaming on HBO, and the 3 perspectives are more intriguing and interesting as you now have time to really notice and appreciate the subtle differences in each person's recounting of events (not always caught by me on the first viewing). I'm not saying there isn't room for a tighter edit, but I think it stands up well as-is.

 

But with so much overlap between the three perspectives, why not focus on what really happened and show how the characters reacted and had contrasting perspectives through pacing and dialogue instead of plodding through the proceedings over and over and over again. That's how an omniscient perspective is handled in film. The concluding scene was certainly shown this way.

 

I guess Scott preferred to stage and pace the movie similar to Rashomon, rather than the way you describe. And its important to note that each character's recollections included scenes and moments unique too themselves -not shared by the others. Finally, some scenes that appear to be rote repeats of early footage are, in fact, subtly different (and for good reason) -this can be missed, if not paying close attention (maybe too much to expect from the audience?). This all worked for me, but apparently not for some others and maybe this was why the movie stiffed on release?