MovieChat Forums > The Last Duel (2021) Discussion > ridley cant $ee the fore$t for the tree$...

ridley cant $ee the fore$t for the tree$...

posted 3 years ago by 123Guy (7841)
5 replies | jump to latest

should it have bombed? wellllll........

movies that aren't good should bomb, yes.
this was competently made, but the story just went through paces, shoved grand vistas of CGI kingdoms at us, and violent bloody fights with almost no feeling for the characters.
they are there, they do a thing, but we don't have much reason to care.
is this a documentary? displaying what really happened in a true to life story? well, it is BASED on real somethings, but still the characters just plod along delivering the scripted dialog for some events, and we are not that interested.

CGI: here's were CGI dies. yes it looked fantastic. great! TOO great. so astounding that you immediately know its not a real set, just a video game, no peril, no feeling, just huge and detailed. BRAVEHEART would have killed for such majesty of CGI sets. But braveheart HAD heart, so the sets didn't matter, really. this has CGI sets, so the heart didn't matter.
Example: they show a large shot of old Paris with a name and date, but instead of cutting to the next scene, they pan across it and around slowly to our location where the character rides into the scene, all in one long, boring, not plot pushing at all, shot. there's no need for that. Just say PARIS, then boom next shot. its still (and probably always will be in the future) about showing off the CGI shots. because it is cheaper than building sets, but, maybe it isn't these days.

I'm about halfway through it, feel nothing as I watch these people play out some revenge story, I'll finish it because I like movies, but I'll never watch it a second time. unlike Braveheart which I've watched dozens of times, and look forward to watching again now.

[–] elmacho (1029) 3 years ago

I liked it, but the whole "version" according to each character didn't really make sense as the all pretty much told the same story. It would have cut off a good 20 minutes or so not having that format and just telling it linear.

[–] Darren (1462) 3 years ago

I agree. I get what he was going for. And you do get how each character sees things differently -- Jean's version makes him look more sympathetic, and more concerned for his wife, where hers makes him look more uncaring, and more worried about his own fortunes and his personal honor. Jacques' memory of the incident itself has Marguerite deliberately take her shoes off as she goes upstairs, signalling invitation to him that belies the token protests she must, as a lady, make for show, while her memory of the incident has her shoes falling off as she flees up the steps in terror.

The problem is that the whole first part of movie takes you through the story, then drags you back through it again, and then again for a third time. Each time is a little different, and you get key details that are important to the plot, but it really does feel like it slows the whole film down unacceptably. I think a better way to have handled it might have been to proceed through the lead up to the incident linearly, and then have the varying details from each of the three main characters' points of view come out in flashback scenes during the trial, as each of the characters gives testimony. That would have been a more conventional way to tell this story, but I think it might have resulted in a better paced film that would have done better at the box office.

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

yes! once I figured out they were going to show us THREE FRICKIN TIMES, I skipped to the end.

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

ridley blames millenials.... I'm no where near millenial age and I thought it was a waste of time. glad it was free on HBO and I didn't fund it

[–] damocci (1516) 3 years ago

Jacques' memory of the incident itself has Marguerite deliberately take her shoes off as she goes upstairs, signalling invitation to him that belies the token protests she must, as a lady, make for show, while her memory of the incident has her shoes falling off as she flees up the steps in terror.

I did not notice this and as such could not understand why Jacques kept insisting "there was no rape" as if he genuinely believed his own words. This clears up my confusion. Thank you.