***This review will contain details about this movie that some may consider spoilers. I've tried to keep them as brief and non-specific as possible.***
Usually after I've watched a movie for the first time, I can say definitively whether I liked it or not. The Last Duel is a rare exception whereby I couldn't (and to some degree still can't) decide how I feel about it, so I remain somewhat neutral. I don't hate the movie, but I don't absolutely love it either.
Nevertheless, I would still recommend giving it a watch simply because it's an interesting story in which the subject matter remains hugely relevant in modern times. It is also visually stunning (with the exception of Matt Damon's mullet) and the cinematography is breathtaking.
With that said, I will break down what I liked about this film and what I did not. Keep in mind, these are just my own thoughts and preferences that affect my personal enjoyment and appreciation of a film. I'll start with what I didn't like first so that I can end this review on a more positive note.
The first thing I found off-putting about the movie was that Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, and Adam Driver were in it. Not because they are bad actors (they are certainly not), but because casting American A-list actors in a period film ruins the immersion for me. Remember the time Game of Thrones gave Ed Sheeran a cameo appearance? It caused an immersion outrage! That's sort of what I experienced with the Last Duel. Instead of focusing on the story, I became fixated on judging the quality of Damon's, Affleck's, and Driver's British Accents.
To be fair, I do this with EVERY actor who modifies their regular accent for a film role. If it's less than perfect (which it often is) I find it to be a distraction. Christian Bale is one of the few actors that I feel does accents perfectly. Matt Damon's British accent is (to my ears anyway) embarrassingly bad. Adam Driver's was surprisingly not bad, and Ben Affleck's was okay (though more Irish sounding). The point is, I don't want to be thinking about this while watching a movie, but I can't help it. It makes me wonder if actors also find themselves distracted by it, perhaps focusing more on getting their accent right instead of acting out the scene right.
Having one American actor may have been less of a big deal for me, but putting three in lead roles was just too much of a distraction for me. Their acting was just "okay" in this movie. Damon and Affleck are both brilliant actors, but in The Last Duel, not so much. Either way, their presence in a medieval-themed period drama was an immersion killer. I probably would have liked the movie more if they had cast lesser-known, British actors (or even French which would have been even better).
Now for what I liked: basically everything else. I disagree that the movie was too long. I think it's as long as it needed to be to tell the story in a meaningful, coherent way. There are three different perspectives being told of the same story, so it makes sense that they should all get equal screen time. And it's those perspectives which I found the most fascinating, because they made sense psychologically.
There are two types of truths: there is your truth and the actual, objective truth. And when it comes to personal experiences, the truth is largely subjective. The way you see yourself is subjective. The way you perceive your actions is subjective. You may see yourself as a loving, caring husband. You may see yourself as having committed an act that you felt was not a crime, and therefore proclaim your innocence. But then there is the ACTUAL truth. What REALLY happened, and who was affected by those actions.
In a way, all three perspectives are the "truth", because no one seems to be deliberately lying; no one believes they've done anything wrong. Rather, two of the three stories are a distorted version of reality with mitigating details. All three believe they are the true victim: one believes they have committed no crime and has been wrongfully accused, one believes they are the victim of (essentially) "property damage", and one believes they are the victim of sexual assault. Nonetheless, each version of the story seems to confirm that the act was definitely not consensual. Instead, the accused perceived the frequent use of the words "no" and "stop" to be synonymous with a "customary protest". What a time to be alive!
In conclusion, it's a fascinating story that is only enhanced by its attention to detail. The variations in each recounting of events can be easily missed if you're not looking for them, but they are all important to the story. Every scene, every detail, and every word served a purpose and was worth paying attention to. To be sure, this is not a fast paced action packed story, and will be appreciated most by those who love epic narratives and historical period films. That is, as long as you're not distracted by the A-listers and accents. :)
Usually after I've watched a movie for the first time, I can say definitively whether I liked it or not. The Last Duel is a rare exception whereby I couldn't (and to some degree still can't) decide how I feel about it, so I remain somewhat neutral. I don't hate the movie, but I don't absolutely love it either.
Nevertheless, I would still recommend giving it a watch simply because it's an interesting story in which the subject matter remains hugely relevant in modern times. It is also visually stunning (with the exception of Matt Damon's mullet) and the cinematography is breathtaking.
With that said, I will break down what I liked about this film and what I did not. Keep in mind, these are just my own thoughts and preferences that affect my personal enjoyment and appreciation of a film. I'll start with what I didn't like first so that I can end this review on a more positive note.
The first thing I found off-putting about the movie was that Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, and Adam Driver were in it. Not because they are bad actors (they are certainly not), but because casting American A-list actors in a period film ruins the immersion for me. Remember the time Game of Thrones gave Ed Sheeran a cameo appearance? It caused an immersion outrage! That's sort of what I experienced with the Last Duel. Instead of focusing on the story, I became fixated on judging the quality of Damon's, Affleck's, and Driver's British Accents.
To be fair, I do this with EVERY actor who modifies their regular accent for a film role. If it's less than perfect (which it often is) I find it to be a distraction. Christian Bale is one of the few actors that I feel does accents perfectly. Matt Damon's British accent is (to my ears anyway) embarrassingly bad. Adam Driver's was surprisingly not bad, and Ben Affleck's was okay (though more Irish sounding). The point is, I don't want to be thinking about this while watching a movie, but I can't help it. It makes me wonder if actors also find themselves distracted by it, perhaps focusing more on getting their accent right instead of acting out the scene right.
Having one American actor may have been less of a big deal for me, but putting three in lead roles was just too much of a distraction for me. Their acting was just "okay" in this movie. Damon and Affleck are both brilliant actors, but in The Last Duel, not so much. Either way, their presence in a medieval-themed period drama was an immersion killer. I probably would have liked the movie more if they had cast lesser-known, British actors (or even French which would have been even better).
Now for what I liked: basically everything else. I disagree that the movie was too long. I think it's as long as it needed to be to tell the story in a meaningful, coherent way. There are three different perspectives being told of the same story, so it makes sense that they should all get equal screen time. And it's those perspectives which I found the most fascinating, because they made sense psychologically.
There are two types of truths: there is your truth and the actual, objective truth. And when it comes to personal experiences, the truth is largely subjective. The way you see yourself is subjective. The way you perceive your actions is subjective. You may see yourself as a loving, caring husband. You may see yourself as having committed an act that you felt was not a crime, and therefore proclaim your innocence. But then there is the ACTUAL truth. What REALLY happened, and who was affected by those actions.
In a way, all three perspectives are the "truth", because no one seems to be deliberately lying; no one believes they've done anything wrong. Rather, two of the three stories are a distorted version of reality with mitigating details. All three believe they are the true victim: one believes they have committed no crime and has been wrongfully accused, one believes they are the victim of (essentially) "property damage", and one believes they are the victim of sexual assault. Nonetheless, each version of the story seems to confirm that the act was definitely not consensual. Instead, the accused perceived the frequent use of the words "no" and "stop" to be synonymous with a "customary protest". What a time to be alive!
In conclusion, it's a fascinating story that is only enhanced by its attention to detail. The variations in each recounting of events can be easily missed if you're not looking for them, but they are all important to the story. Every scene, every detail, and every word served a purpose and was worth paying attention to. To be sure, this is not a fast paced action packed story, and will be appreciated most by those who love epic narratives and historical period films. That is, as long as you're not distracted by the A-listers and accents. :)