GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

lasttimeisaw Ridley Scott's feature film debut is a handsome period drama taps into a historical factoid concerning a string of duels between two French Hussar officers in the Napoleonic era, in this film, the two duelists are Armand d'Hubert (Carradine) and Gabriel Feraud (Keitel), whose overall 5 duels extend nearly 2 decades and their weapon of choice changing from sabers, rapiers to pistols, once on horseback. If you are keen on finding the rationale behind their drawn-out conflict, you may feel a bit unfulfilled, there is no feud or even rift at the first place to begin with, being his acquaintance, Armand's sole mistake is to volunteer as a messenger to deliver some not so jovial news to Gabriel, who is a wacko fanatic of bloodbath, Keitel is outright menacing and snarky in an ultimately underwritten character, because Scott plumps for the chivalry-minded Armand as the cynosure, an accountable decision since he is the one we root for unyieldingly, albeit Carradine's devoted performance, Armand's life trajectory does fall into every bromide along the fragmented narrative: he is an honest man, true to his feelings (doesn't want to settle down with his mistress Laura, played by a spunky Diana Quick, only to be thrown into oblivion perfunctorily) and doesn't shirk from his duty and will fight for his honor till his last breath, with the exception of his noble decision to anonymously save Gabriel from the gallows after Waterloo fiasco, why on earth he wants to spare his arch enemy? In a weird logic, one finally gets the impression that Armand doesn't want their unfinished business to reach such a bathetic denouement, in his heart of hearts, the urge to settle this old score with a final face-off also tickles him, that intrinsic violent id is every man's inner demon, right before their last pistol duel, Armand is simultaneously hot to trot and dreads his possible impending fate. This is what the film brings home to its viewers, less a mockery of foolhardy gallantry than burrowing into a man's conflict between his fighting instinct and its knock- on effects, which also compels us to divine what is the mindset behind Gabriel's outwardly monstrosity, is he psychiatrically impaired or there is something deeply nefarious worth digging (to smear Armand's loyalty toward Napoleon is such an underhand ploy), only if the story could have been a far more even-handed portrayal of them both.On the aesthetic front, Scott makes the most of the its elemental and picturesque natural locales which reminds us BARRY LYNDON (1975), but in a less heavenly fashion, the palette is more muted and more crude in impression. From almost any aspect THE DUELLISTS is a far cry from Scott's galaxy-shattering sophomore ALIEN (1979, 8.5/10) and his canonized Sci-Fi magnum opus BLADE RUNNER (1982, 9.2/10), but this is where he starts, pales in comparison with what he would conjure up in his prolific and prestigious career, nevertheless, it auspiciously breaks his duck, that is not just a beginner's luck.

Manny Kim 'The Duellists' does not specialize in plot or character development, though they are present in the film. So why the stellar review?There is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie in terms of plot and character development, costume design, choreography and soundtrack. Though there are and will be disagreement on some of the director's choices, everything in the film is deliberate or at least appears so.This is one of Ridley Scott's first films and like many people, Scott seems to understand that first impressions go a long way. Many 'first films' are great because their directors put their very best effort into making their break. In this film, expect a great mix of 'haute art' and frantic action.Oh, did I mention that the actors used weighted, metal, blunted swords and swung them at each other?

Andrea Mariano Alesci It's sparkles as two words meeting in the air. It's Ridley Scott's debut film (inspired by a Joseph Conrad's tale) and it is based on a futile motive of offense turned into a 15-years-long-lasting-duel: From the time Napoleon got on charge (1800) till the beginning of the Restoration (1816). That's a challenge protracted through the time and involving two hussar lieutenants: Volatile and insolent Gabriel Féraud (Harvey Keitel) and measured courteous Armand d'Hubert (Keith Carradine).The opposition between two natures, two points of view, two worlds can bump into each other only on the edge, in the heat of a duel Scott show us using quick reverse shots. There is a perfect melody linked to those cutting blows we saw in their memorable clash in Strasbourg, in the Féraud's house courtyard where the same Féraud got injured.But this is only the starting point of a rivalry sliding through years and places, becoming an obsession to Féraud and a fierce anxiety to his opposite D'Hubert. There are only these two figures in front of us while all other things roll on the background and everything else fade in the vague conglomerated of the facts – Thanks to backlits that Ridley Scott skilfully builds on around the single fact that matters: The duel Féraud/D'Hubert.Two uniforms will wind up the following year in Augusta: Once in a farmstead's garden when D'Hubert were wounded to the chest and he couldn't continue the match; then inside a barn with a grisy fight goes on to the exhaustion of the contendings – Spectators stop them.By the time they are compromised men and an iron bond inextricably grip them. Whilst moderate D'Hubert tries to escape the forthcoming vis à vis, he stumbles upon his enemy in a tavern in Lubecca (1806). So here it is a new quarrel. On horseback. But this time D'Hubert becomes Féraud: The wicked challenger ends up on the ground for the impetus of whom wants to definitely close the game.However the duel will never get to the end until one will die. And six years later that phantom comes again in the middle of the blank desertic Russia Campaign, but this time Féraud and D'Hubert's guns aim at the same direction to stifle Cossacks threat. History steps in between. And it also does when they return home: Armand D'Hubert is at the service of King Louis XVIII; instead Gabriel Féraud wrecks himself like his Emperor does.D'Hubert becomes general; Féraud gets in the list of whom destined to the guillotine. But general D'Hubert has a personal code honor and asks for a grace to be given to his rival Féraud, interceding to the powerful Police Minister, Joseph Fouché (Albert Finney).Nevertheless the duel hasn't disappeared and there is nothing can placate Féraud. Until the epilogue in Tours (1816), the final skirmish amongst ruins of a castle: One gun and two cartridges to everyone.Féraud consumes his, D'Hubert has one lock and load and takes a decision: He honorably decides to declare dead the enemy and so to take his life. He decides to lead him to his hour death and to stop men who challenge the world as everything is a dull game.

William Samuel Ridley Scott's The Duelists is quite possibly the best sword fighting film I've seen, and one of the best Napoleonic period pieces, despite having no battle scenes. Although it takes place amidst the Napoleonic wars, and although both the protagonists are soldiers, The Duelists is not a war movie. Rather, it is a character study of two men, and an irrepressible feud pursued across years and countries. It could perhaps be called a relationship film, but not in the usual sense. Whereas most relationship movies involve growing love and understanding, the relationship between Armand d'Hubert and Lieutenant Feraud is one antagonism and self-destruction.Despite being of the same age and profession, d'Hubert (Keith Carradine) and Feraud (Harvey Keitel) could not be more different. D'Hubert is charming, likable, and never takes things too seriously, preferring to take things in stride. Feraud on the other hand is borderline psychotic. He takes offense with incredible ease, and always demands satisfaction. When we first meet him, he has just impaled another man, supposedly over the honor of his unit. It turns out that the man he killed was the nephew of the mayor of a major city, and orders are given for his arrest. It is d'Hubert's great misfortune to be the one who delivers this news to Feraud, sparking their first duel. Over the next sixteen years, they will fight no less than four more, not counting one that was interrupted by Cossacks.Why does this go on? It is because Feraud will simply not give up his grudge. Long after he's forgotten the exact circumstances of their first meeting, he still holds a venomous hatred for d'Hubert, one that cannot be sated by any number of victories. He will not be satisfied until Armand is dead at his hands.As for d'Hubert, he has no wish to continue this feud. He just wants Feraud to leave him alone. Yet his sense of honor prevents him from declining Feraud's challenges, and at one point compels him to defend the life of his enemy. He eventually takes on a fatalistic attitude about the matter. And why should he not? After the first duel, a surgeon told him that there can be no duel if they are in different places, if they are of different rank, or if France is at war. Yet the two keeping crossing each other's paths during lulls in the fighting, when they hold the same rank.Even after Napoleon is exiled and pair enter semi-retirement at their estates, it still doesn't end, even though its cost them so much. Both bear many wounds from their duels, and cost Armand the woman he loved. It is, in the words a fortune teller seen midway through the film, "a quarrel pursued for its own sake." Keitel and Carradine do a wonderful job of bringing their characters to life. Keitel fully captures Feraud's obsession and burning anger, even when he is at rest you can see the hatred in his eyes. And Carradine carries himself through a range of acting styles. From the young debonair Lieutenant cracking jokes over dinner, to the exhausted, frostbitten major trudging across the Russian steppes, to the respected middle aged aristocrat, exasperated that he must do battle yet again, and so afraid of losing good life and wonderful family he has earned for himself.But acting alone isn't enough; in a movie called The Duelists one would expect some pretty fancy swordplay. And that's exactly what we get. Every duel is excellently filmed and choreographed, and each confrontation has a feel all its own. The first two are precise, even elegant displays of swordsmanship. Then comes a brutal, incredibly physical slug-fest, an exceedingly tense horseback duel, akin to a medieval joust, and finally a deadly game of cat and mouse, played with two pistols apiece among overgrown ruins. When their contest a wills is settled once and for all, it is done so masterfully, and in a manner I could not have anticipated.The Duelists is a work of excitement and suspense, held together with a solid plot, and filled with strong performances and lavish attention to detail. It may be at quite the same level as Gladiator or Alien, but it is everything audiences should come to expect from Ridley Scott.