Watched it on HBO Max last night and loved it. I hope it finds a second life streaming and makes a little money. I thought the acting was surprisingly great considering it looked like medieval Dogma in the trailers. The battles and fights were incredible. I like the Rashomon story structure. Would recommend to stream.
*** THE LAST DUEL *** (Damon, Affleck, Driver, dir. Ridley Scott)
16,310 Views |
132 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by YouBet
Especially the extended cut. Different movie than theatrical version.MaroonStain said:
Kingdom of Heaven is a .masterpiece.
Average movie. The fight scene was really good and thought affleck didn't fit the role.
Three storyline made it better
Three storyline made it better
I enjoyed the 3 perspectives, but the overall duration was excessive and detracted from the movie. I didn't need to see the rape scene twice to get the point. I had such high hopes for this one and felt impatient during the movie and disappointed afterward. The fight scene was intense and well done. I would grade it as a C, and would not watch again.
I'm usually a sucker for sword and board historical dramas, but that was about as bored in a movie as I've ever been.
I think I had called every future twist by about halfway through Adam Drivers segment. Maybe they were going for inevitability and I missed it.
I think I had called every future twist by about halfway through Adam Drivers segment. Maybe they were going for inevitability and I missed it.
Head Ninja In Charge
Joined:
Oct 10, 2005
Posts:
19,337
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Don't know how Ridley Scott managed to make the most boring movie and the most absurdly ridiculous movie back to back in the same year, but that's what he did with The Last Duel and House of Gucci.
I watched about half of this last night on HBO and it's pretty boring so far. I'm also having a tough time dealing with the haircuts. Affleck looks like he's in a 90's boy band and Damon looks like a redneck caricature. I'll try to finish it this night, but it's not off to a strong start.
Also, I'm a frequent listener of The Rewatchables podcast on The Ringer. One of the categories they discuss is which actor thinks they're in a different movie? Affleck is playing his role as if he's on The Great, an absurdist period comedy, the rest of the cast is clearly in a drama, Affleck is just having fun. He definitely helps break up the boredom of the plot, but he really overtakes the scenes he's in because he's a starkly different character than everyone else.
Also, I'm a frequent listener of The Rewatchables podcast on The Ringer. One of the categories they discuss is which actor thinks they're in a different movie? Affleck is playing his role as if he's on The Great, an absurdist period comedy, the rest of the cast is clearly in a drama, Affleck is just having fun. He definitely helps break up the boredom of the plot, but he really overtakes the scenes he's in because he's a starkly different character than everyone else.
Perfect description.Max Power said:
I watched about half of this last night on HBO and it's pretty boring so far. I'm also having a tough time dealing with the haircuts. Affleck looks like he's in a 90's boy band and Damon looks like a redneck caricature. I'll try to finish it this night, but it's not off to a strong start.
Were they trying to make it seem like Driver didn't rape the girl from his POV? I couldn't tell if he was actually being honest when he told Affleck that he thought she just gave him the typical refusals of a lady. It definitely looked like she got raped both times.
Yea, a problem I'm having so far is that the trailers presented it as if there were different interpretations of what happened. Driver's story did not remotely appear to be a consensual interaction, it was very much the opposite. So far I watched Damon's truth and Driver's truth, I stopped watching before they showed Comer's truth so I still have that part to watch, but I really don't care to see another scene of a woman being raped.Champ Bailey said:
Were they trying to make it seem like Driver didn't rape the girl from his POV? I couldn't tell if he was actually being honest when he told Affleck that he thought she just gave him the typical refusals of a lady. It definitely looked like she got raped both times.
If I remember correctly, Driver's perspective is different in that Comer is presented as kind of sort of wanting him to ravage her. There are subtle differences in her facial expressions and the words she uses that, in Driver's mind, show that she's basically asking for it, even if she's not. Which "justifies" it in his head.
Max Power said:Yea, a problem I'm having so far is that the trailers presented it as if there were different interpretations of what happened. Driver's story did not remotely appear to be a consensual interaction, it was very much the opposite. So far I watched Damon's truth and Driver's truth, I stopped watching before they showed Comer's truth so I still have that part to watch, but I really don't care to see another scene of a woman being raped.Champ Bailey said:
Were they trying to make it seem like Driver didn't rape the girl from his POV? I couldn't tell if he was actually being honest when he told Affleck that he thought she just gave him the typical refusals of a lady. It definitely looked like she got raped both times.
It's worse the second time, I recommend fast forwarding.
They set it up with the "fake" protests in one of the orgy scenes. He even copies his own dialogue verbatim.
Part of me is concerned that the movie was trying to make a statement about every he-said-she-said situation and that's what kept them from telling a very believable story for Legree. The tone definitely shifted quite a bit from that point.
I think what I actually didn't like about the movie, beyond just being bored most of the way, is that they got Driver, Damon, and Affleck in a medieval period piece and it ended up being about gender relations in 14th century France. That can be an interesting movie but if all the stars are big burly dudes, you kind of expect an epic war story.
TCTTS said:
If I remember correctly, Driver's perspective is different in that Comer is presented as kind of sort of wanting him to ravage her. There are subtle differences in her facial expressions and the words she uses that, in Driver's mind, show that she's basically asking for it, even if she's not. Which "justifies" it in his head.
Ok, I just wasn't sure if that's honestly what he thought, or if he was just lying to cover his ass. Not sure which ones worse though.
It's been so long, I can't remember if Driver's character's argument is essentially, "We didn't have sex/relations of any kind" or "We had sex, but it was consensual."
TCTTS said:
It's been so long, I can't remember if Driver's character's argument is essentially, "We didn't have sex/relations of any kind" or "We had sex, but it was consensual."
He changes his story back and forth depending on the needs of the moment, and it's after we've realized that two characters we at first suspected are "good guys" have perceived the same events very differently.
First he tells Affleck he never touched her
Then admits that he did, but that her protests were formulaic rather than real
Then denies it in the rumor mill
Then swears to the king that he never did
Then stands by quietly while his lawyer makes a muddle of the issue implying that it happened but Marguerite wanted it
Then denies it on pain of damnation during the duel
The one thing he never admits is that it was non-consensual. During the critical scene itself, you suspect that he realizes the magnitude of what he's done but is already talking himself into a different version of events
Gotcha. Great refresher/breakdown, thanks.
As I continue thinking about this movie, I'm forced to give it a little more credit for what it tried to do. There's interesting stuff in there, but it's a bad version of the movie I THOUGHT I was going to see. I wonder if it would have landed better with A-list leading ladies and lower profile male actors. The actors did a great job, but putting Batman and Jason Bourne in your movie comes with certain expectations.
I thought we were going to see Affleck and Damon together in the McMillions scam movie before this one, whatever happened to that film that was supposedly in the works?
I finished up the film last night, and I'm not real sure what the point of the story was. Women are property and powerless in the society run by men? That's not a new story. How power corrupts? The powerful make the rules that those without power are subject to? Also not new. The only thing I saw of a character learning anything was when Marguerite found out while at trial that if Jean loses the duel she will be put to death by being burned at the stake. She learned how far her husband's pride could potentially lead to her own demise when she was never given an idea of the consequences of taking this matter to that point.
It really wasn't even compelling in a he said/he said/she said context. The fights were intense and well executed. I thought maybe during the duel that Jacques, who told Marguerite how much he loved her before raping her, would lose on purpose or recant during the duel to atone for his actions, that didn't happen. Jean didn't appear to learn to appreciate or love his wife more than before, he seemed far happier to secure the adulation of the crowd than he was to have saved the lives of himself and his wife.
One thing I was wondering about, if it was explained then I missed it, but how did Jacques know to come to see Marguerite on a day that no one else was at the property? Are we to believe that Jean's mother made these arrangements? Jean was in Paris, and his mother leaves the property, taking all the servants, leaving Marguerite completely alone, that doesn't feel like chance.
It really wasn't even compelling in a he said/he said/she said context. The fights were intense and well executed. I thought maybe during the duel that Jacques, who told Marguerite how much he loved her before raping her, would lose on purpose or recant during the duel to atone for his actions, that didn't happen. Jean didn't appear to learn to appreciate or love his wife more than before, he seemed far happier to secure the adulation of the crowd than he was to have saved the lives of himself and his wife.
One thing I was wondering about, if it was explained then I missed it, but how did Jacques know to come to see Marguerite on a day that no one else was at the property? Are we to believe that Jean's mother made these arrangements? Jean was in Paris, and his mother leaves the property, taking all the servants, leaving Marguerite completely alone, that doesn't feel like chance.
The historical accounts say Marguerite was fully aware of the consequence should her husband lose the duel and that was cited as the deciding factor to the King and Parliament that her accusation had merit. The entire case is incredibly well documented in records kept by by contemporary writers and the attorney for Le Gris.
I watched this with my wife and she was bored within 10 minutes but I struggled through it and thought it was well done by the end and it made me want to read up on the history of the trial and duel.
I watched this with my wife and she was bored within 10 minutes but I struggled through it and thought it was well done by the end and it made me want to read up on the history of the trial and duel.
Champ Bailey said:
Were they trying to make it seem like Driver didn't rape the girl from his POV? I couldn't tell if he was actually being honest when he told Affleck that he thought she just gave him the typical refusals of a lady. It definitely looked like she got raped both times.
I thought it was clear that he didn't think he raped her. They set it up with him chasing the girls in the orgy scene. That seemed to be a typical foreplay thing for people back then. Then, in his POV the same thing happened in the rape scene. And her facial expressions and comments and they way she carried herself were subtly very different than her scene.
I'm not saying he should have that POV given the circumstances but I think it's clear that he did in his mind.
Has anyone else ever noticed that in pretty much Matt Damon is in he eats something that is totally "fake". He just moves his jaw and mouth and talks while he is "eating".
RebAg13
Joined:
Jul 6, 2009
Posts:
10,188
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There's really not much difference between his perspective of the rape and hers', in my opinion. Maybe they were trying to show the difference in the time period where he would just be considered really tenacious. Either way it's hard to watch.Max Power said:Yea, a problem I'm having so far is that the trailers presented it as if there were different interpretations of what happened. Driver's story did not remotely appear to be a consensual interaction, it was very much the opposite. So far I watched Damon's truth and Driver's truth, I stopped watching before they showed Comer's truth so I still have that part to watch, but I really don't care to see another scene of a woman being raped.Champ Bailey said:
Were they trying to make it seem like Driver didn't rape the girl from his POV? I couldn't tell if he was actually being honest when he told Affleck that he thought she just gave him the typical refusals of a lady. It definitely looked like she got raped both times.
Agree with the poster that said Affleck was in a different movie. I thought he looked like something from The Hunger Games and Damon looked like late 90s early 2000 James Hetfield in his mullet years. Driver was the only who looked the part.
It was a long tough slog for one really good fight scene at the end. That's how I'd sum this one up.
The fascinating thing about the whole story is the two combatants. Le Gris (Driver) and Carrouges (Damon) were both 56 years old at the time of the duel which seems very old for a man in the Middle Ages. Carrouges was fresh off of a long grueling military campaign in Scotland where he was involved in some brutal hand to hand combat. The contemporary reports of the duel describe a violent and harsh battle between the two men wearing full plated armor, Le Gris was the stronger man but Carrouges was able to knock him off his feet and he couldn't get back up because his armor was too heavy. Carrouges bashed him with a Sword and couldn't pierce the armor so he straddled him and used the butt of his sword to break the lock on his face plate and jabbed a dagger into his throat.
I used to think of men in that time period as smaller and weaker than modern men but it really shows they were brutal and powerful men to be able to fight on horseback and on foot with heavy armor and weaponry.
I used to think of men in that time period as smaller and weaker than modern men but it really shows they were brutal and powerful men to be able to fight on horseback and on foot with heavy armor and weaponry.
Very cool and I appreciate you providing the historical knowledge regarding the actual duel.
Edit: wrong emoji, should be emphatic thumbs up.
Edit: wrong emoji, should be emphatic thumbs up.
I thought along the same lines... that a duel between 2 old dudes would be really boring and that Hollywood must have livened it up with some younger actors.bonfarr said:
The fascinating thing about the whole story is the two combatants. Le Gris (Driver) and Carrouges (Damon) were both 56 years old at the time of the duel which seems very old for a man in the Middle Ages...
Then I realized that Damon is 51 years old
During Driver's scene there was a moment it sounded like she said no but in an almost laughing manner. They weren't showing her face at the time if I recall.
I had to fast forward through her retelling. They could have conveyed her emotions via sound from outside the room. To be honest it kind of ruined the movie a bit and I wished I'd started FF sooner.
The movie was definitely too long but I never found it boring. Once was enough though - no interest in seeing it again.
I had to fast forward through her retelling. They could have conveyed her emotions via sound from outside the room. To be honest it kind of ruined the movie a bit and I wished I'd started FF sooner.
The movie was definitely too long but I never found it boring. Once was enough though - no interest in seeing it again.
Staff - take out the trash.
That was great.
TCTTS said:
If I remember correctly, Driver's perspective is different in that Comer is presented as kind of sort of wanting him to ravage her. There are subtle differences in her facial expressions and the words she uses that, in Driver's mind, show that she's basically asking for it, even if she's not. Which "justifies" it in his head.
I didn't see even an ounce of this.
The one thing I'm still not clear on is if the first time they appear to have slept together in Le Gris' POV, actually happened or not.
Since the final perspective skipped over that completely, I didn't know if I was meant to assume that part happened exactly the same, or didn't happen at all.
Since the final perspective skipped over that completely, I didn't know if I was meant to assume that part happened exactly the same, or didn't happen at all.
Brian Earl Spilner said:TCTTS said:
If I remember correctly, Driver's perspective is different in that Comer is presented as kind of sort of wanting him to ravage her. There are subtle differences in her facial expressions and the words she uses that, in Driver's mind, show that she's basically asking for it, even if she's not. Which "justifies" it in his head.
I didn't see even an ounce of this.
I'm sorry, then you weren't paying attention. Because in Driver's version Comer's protests absolutely have a sense of "teasing" to them, and call back to the previous scene where he chased that woman around the table before having consensual sex with her. Yes, even in Driver's version, Comer of course still attempts to get away, but the entire point of showing the rape twice is to show how Le Gris interpreted her "no"s as ever-so-subtle "yes"s, compared to her unequivocal "no"s and the horror she experienced from her POV.
Not even a little bit, and in fact I was paying very close attention. Yes, there were slight differences, but I was actually really confused that his POV showed a clear rape and not something that was a "gray area".
But funny that you immediately jump to me not paying attention rather than simply disagreeing with my perspective.
But funny that you immediately jump to me not paying attention rather than simply disagreeing with my perspective.
There's nothing to "disagree" about. Go read any review, interview, or the script itself and they'll all confirm it. Also, I didn't say it was a "gray area." I said there were super subtle cues and that's it. Little facial tics, calling back to the other scene I was talking about, etc. Should Scott have made it more obvious? Probably. But I'm just pointing out what was, indeed, intended.
Featured Stories
See All
Ten season-defining moments along Texas A&M's championship run
by Richard Zane
5:44
3d ago
3.9k
The Film Room: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Stephen McGee
6:00
3d ago
4.9k
Defense in Review feat. Sean Porter: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Billy Liucci
5:21
3d ago
1.8k
LB Blitz: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Sean Porter
Three Things: Top Christmas movies, portal reminders & more
by Jason Howell
Fireman
Left Field Opinion…Two Bowls should hold spots for First Round Losers
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
122
satexas
Left Field Opinion…Two Bowls should hold spots for First Round Losers
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
43
The Asset 07
Last 5 star (composite) to play like a 5 star at A&M?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
32