ThiefHott Too much of everything

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

talula1060 The bg issue with this film is the cast and acting. It's not the scenery which is a lush tour of 19th Century Europe where honor and integrity win the day among the Hussars in Napoleon's Grand Armee. It's not the costumes which are so authentic as to be antiques. Brightly colored uniforms, hats bursting with plumage, and gowns fit for a queen. It's not the staging which sets the scenes perfectly in the glow if candlelight or in the bitter cold steppes of Russia during the battle for Moscow. It isn't the script which had just the right combination of old world lingo and new humor to make it work. It's not really the concept either which is based on true events. There was a pair of Hussars who dueled over 20 years. They did each distinguish themselves in the army and earn promotions to generals. No it's none of those things. It's the cast and the acting. I understand that Ridley Scott was given a choice of four actors to choose from for the two leads. His first two choices fell through so here we are with Carradine and Keitel. First Carradine. His acting is non-existent and he's not at all believable as either a military man or a man driven by honor above all else. He comes off as a beach bum from California, not a Napoleonic Frenchman. The way in which he spoke some of the lines seemed contrived mainly because in those days people used a lot more words to get their points across. Instead of saying, "I won't go to the party," they instead would say, "I daresay I shan't be attending the fete." Or something like that. Carradine just said the words without attaching any real meaning to them. He was as bland as can be. Also, the actress who played his sister inexplicably spoke with an English accent. It was very strange to hear her "brother" answering her in a valley boy voice (oh my gawwwd). As for Keitel, I'm not sure anyone would even need to see the movie to realize that casting him as a French Hussar from the 1800s is making a major error. He just can't pull off historical work. Not only is he incapable of dropping his Brooklynese accent, he doesn't even seem to want to try. All he does is speak his lines slowly and precisely in the same tough NY way he always does. It's unbelievable that Ridley Scott thought it was appropriate to have the entire cast speak in English accents except for the two main characters. They stuck out like sore thumbs and not in a good way! Neither of them had the acting chops to play this type of role which called for straight backed military men who are driven by their ideas about what a gentleman must do, how their integrity plays into that, and how risking one's life to maintain honor is paramount. Keitel walked around like the tough gangster type he always does and seemed not to care about what anyone said or did. He's given direct orders which he ignores but somehow makes it all the way to general? Although true in real life, he certainly didn't play it that way. He didn't seem to care about anything but fighting duels and watching out for Carradine so he could challenge him again. As for Carradine, he seemed to be going through the motions of doing his duty but he really didn't act as though he cared about anything either. He seemed mildly annoyed whenever he ran into Keitel and that didn't change much until the middle section of the film and only slightly. All in all, a beautifully photographed movie that isn't worth your time because the acting and casting is so egregiously wrong that it's impossible to look past it to enjoy the movie. PASS

BasicLogic First of all, how could it possible that Napoleon's army was such an undisciplined crowd allowed his brothers-in-arms to have their own will and pleasure to kill each other for such a senseless and pointless duels instead of killing their claimed foreign enemies? The story was such a illogical scenario by telling us that a guy who received the order from his superior to look for the other soldier who knowingly or unknowingly wounded the son of a mayor, then the thug-like bloody thirst soldier unreasonably blamed that unlucky messenger soldier to find him and forced him to duel with him, and then the unexplainable animosity last for over an decade? Yet the most unexplainable absurdity is these two guys, one thug soldier and one absolutely a gentleman soldier both could have advanced themselves unto a general rank? If this absurdity in the Napoleon's army was true, no wonder he would have lost wars against Russia and then at Waterloo to the British army. That bully and thug who prided himself as a duelist on nowadays standard and army law, should have stood court marshal, thrown in the prison or shot, albeit promoted again and again from a low ranking officer to a general. What a joke! But the most ridiculous and laughable thing of this film is these so-called duelists didn't even know how to use their swords! They were using their swords in the duels like peasants chopping wood blocks with axes for the winter. There's no swordsmanship or any fighting techniques at all with their swords, just chopping randomly to each other until both tired themselves out. That's another ridiculous joke of this film. These guys were not on the level of "The Three Musketeers" who were French soldiers too and obviously, they knew how to use their swords expertly and knew how to fight or duel.This film had wasted so many expensive settings, costumes and manpower just for the purpose to realize a ridiculous short story by Joseph Conrad, a great author but obviously not quite familiar with the French military ethics but only crafted a dramatic but absurd short story by his own imagination, then it was stupidly adapted into a moronic movie script and directed by a director who again overlooked the absurdity of the story, then signed up two guys to play these two foolish characters as the duelists, yet never had the heart and patience to train them as proper and believable swordsmen who later in this film only became two laughable red-neck like guys, using their swords like waving axes without any artful swords fighting techniques is something I could never understand.5 stars are for the nice settings, costumes, stunts and makeup, not for the poor story itself at all.

Adam Peters (83%) Could this be the finest shot, most beautiful films ever to be made by a first time feature film maker? Well it's certainly a contender. Scott really went to town making this look and feel like a period novel has come alive on the screen using both fine tiny detail and wide open and very dramatic vistas. The plot deals with both the importance and the absurdity of honour in the early 19th century as the two army officers have an off and on again personal battles rather likened to a romantic comedy. There's enough substance to accompany the stunning visuals, but the film is a touch one note, although the ending is brilliantly powerful and satisfying in a very unique way.

Gabriel Teixeira It is to be expected from a Ridley Scott picture to have outstanding visuals. 'The Duellists', Scott's debut, already shows this trademark: it is one of the most beautiful yet realistic period films I've seen since Kubrick's 'Barry Lyndon'. In truth, the visual are more attractive than the plot itself.Based on a story by Joseph Conrad, 'The Duellists' is a rather straight-forward story of the rivalry between two Napoleon-era French officers: the more humanized and reasonable d'Hubert (Keith Carradine) and the wild thrill-seeking Feraud (Harvey Keitel). Their rivalry, mostly fed on by Feraud, goes on for decades.Considering this was made before CGI and with such a tight budget, it could not be more impressive. The scenery is beautiful and, just like 'Barry Lyndon' (which Ridley Scott used as inspiration), every scene is made in a way that makes them seem to be taken directly from a painting of that era. The lighting, the costumes, the color schemes... From a technical point, the movie is almost flawless. The simple plot does nothing on its own but complement the scenery with the very believable and intense duels or the locations they go to; even its simplicity allows the viewer to take his time admiring the visual.The casting and acting are in a strange disagreement with each other. Carradine has the aristocratic physique to match his character, whereas Keitel would likely feel out of place as a high officer of the French army. However, the latter benefits from the fact there is little to no focus on the army duty itself and merely has to portray an aggressively wild and obsessed man (which he does a damn good job at); meanwhile, Carradine is far too expressionless and dull (saved only by his matching his character appearance), and the romance scenes of his character are often the dullest parts of the film (though so far distributed that they couldn't drag the film down).As time goes by and the special effects get more and more abundant, a film as natural and beautiful as this only gets better and better. 'The Duellists', just like 'Barry Lyndon', is unlikely to be surpassed in its visual beauty.