Ridley Scott blames millennials and their damn cell phones for making The Last Duel a flop
Ridley Scott thinks young people won't listen to anything unless it happens on a phone
Aux News ridley scott
Ridley Scott is certainly getting around today while promoting House Of Gucci. He talked to The A.V. Club, he told the BBC’s Today that he has a Blade Runner show in the works alongside his Alien show, and on Marc Maron’s WTF show he dug into The Last Duel (his other 2021 movie) and why he thinks it flopped at the box office.
Scott’s take is not that Disney dropped the ball after taking over The Last Duel when it bought out 20th Century Fox, which is something he told Maron he was “concerned” about, but that too many moviegoers these days were “brought up on these fucking cell phones.” Yes, if you had “Ridley Scott thinks The Last Duel flopped because of millennials,” you may pick up your prize at the door. Congratulations.
To be fair, Scott says his argument is a “broad stroke” (and it is), but he thinks young people “do not ever want to be taught anything” unless it’s done “on the cell phone.” Being a period drama, then, The Last Duel and its timely themes just couldn’t connect with perpetually disinterested millennials and their cell phones. Maybe if Scott had released the film as a Quibi it would’ve gotten more attention?
There is one thing about Scott’s theory that is really compelling, though: The Hollywood Reporter quotes him as saying “millennian” and not “millennial,” which sounds way cooler. A millennial is a self-absorbed, unemployable leech living in basements and throwing money away on pricey avocado toasts. A millennian sounds like someone journeying into the great unknown of the future, carrying the burdens that have been forced onto them by their forefathers—the ones who burned the planet, tanked the economy, and keep begging for opportunities to kneel down in front of fascists.
Anyway, millennials and millennians alike should prove Scott wrong and check out The Last Duel. It’s apparently underrated.
232 Comments
Boomers blaming “Millennials” for their own failures once again. How predictable.
About as predictable as Millennials blaming “Boomers” for everything. Did you think this was a one way street thru here?
i like ridley scott moviesi like matt damon moviesi like period piece moviesi do not want to see matt damon with dumb hair in a period piece
Too bad for you. It was good.
the hair or the movie?i liked kingdom of heaven (director’s cut)
Good? It was, meh, at best. It seemed like a soap opera parody of Rashomon. Except, it wasn’t apparently. The third act makes the first two entirely pointless by making that one true and not exploring why any of the other POVs exist aside from the most facile way.
not exploring why any of the other POVs exist aside from the most facile waySounds like you wanted things spelled out for you, which would have ruined the movie for everyone else.
“I don’t want to see Matt Damon with dumb hair in a period piece.” Do yourself a favor, and give this film a hard pass.
Um how did I miss this movie when it came out? Is it as campy fun as it looks?
I haven’t seen the entire film, but my brother and I were watching one of those “How Real Is It” videos about ancient warfare scenes in movies and TV, and he told me to watch this clip as he considered it the most over the top terrible battle scene in existence. I mean, I’ve never read “The Art Of War”, but somehow I doubt that Sun Tzu would approve of bungie jumping as a good battle tactic.
“The foolish man attacks from the front. The competent man attacks from the rear. The wisest man attacks from above, and then back up into the sky, and then back down again, in a sort of bouncing fashion.”- Art of War, unedited pre-release copy
Sure, Damon looked odd, but Affleck looked fly AF.
That was my first response to the quotes from Scott. Damon and Affleck try to do accents while wearing silly hair and sillier beards? Fuuuuck you.I was intrigued by it: i’m sometimes up for a fictionalized retelling of some obscure history. But i didn’t get out to theaters a lot before the pandemic because i have other responsibilities. Add on the pandemic and all of that cringe… yeah, i got other things to do.Just look at the still up top of this page. Jesus Cristo.
Just watching the preview, and the hair kind of took me out of it. And believe me, I’m beyond capable of suspending disbelief even with bad movies. Although Jodie Comer and the reviews might be enough to bring me to see it.Full disclosure for Ridley: I’m gen-X.
Come for Damon’s dumb hair, sure, but you will fucking MARVEL at Affleck’s facewig.That should be price of admission covered, alone.
I want to see it. But the pandemic has been a lot and I’m still not doing theaters regularly quite yet.
The only thing notable about this is that he pronounced it “milleniums”– I just listened to that WTF and it was barely worth noting. Didn’t deserve an article. Every director blames every failed movie on everything. You could dig into directors you like and find them blaming all kinds of insane and now irrelevant shit. What matters is the film longterm. This is a pathetic article.
Checks post author… Barsanti… Whelp… there you go
I’m Gen X, Ridley. I have a family, a job, am training for a half marathon, have TV shows to watch and books to read. I have little time to see movies in theaters.
So forgive me, asshole, if I don’t make time for your rape fetish.
Shit, I have time to see movies in theaters, and you couldn’t get me (woman, youngest Gen X/oldest millennial) anywhere near The Last Duel. You’re absolutely right about the content being a turn-off. I’m sick to death of rape as a plot device or motivator. I don’t need 2+ hours of he-said, she-said (and oh shocker, the guys are lying!) on the big screen. I can just turn on the news or look around to see rape culture. I’ve lived in it my whole life.
Probably shouldn’t make movies about, say, institutional racism then, by your logic, since people can just turn on the news and see it, and people have been dealing with it their whole lives. I mean, why would anyone want to make or see a piece of art that portrays a negative, crappy aspect of society?
Yeah, because that’s exactly what I was saying (/s).
That’s funny because I blame Ridley Scott and the fact that he’s been making movies ranging from mid to bad for decades for making his movie a flop.I’d sooner rewatch Blade Runner, Alien or Thelma & Louise before I check out anything he’s made recently.But hey, sounds like a super healthy way to deal with failure, dawg. You do you.
I thought both The Counselor and American Gangster were underrated. Gladiator and The Martian seem pretty universally liked. I think Exodus is the only movie of his that I’ve actively disliked, but I haven’t seen them all.
“Gladiator and The Martian seem pretty universally liked”I am pretty sure the consensus on Gladiator is that it’s terribly overrated and it was a travesty that it won Best Picture. Bad writing, bad action (and a horrible influence on 2000s-era action films, which were blurry messes of jump cuts), and only saved by some interesting performances.
I feel like it’s had a bit of a renaissance in terms of reputation? I’ve been seeing some opinions that don’t come out and praise it, but settle on a middle ground of “good fun.” Could just be people getting older and more nostalgic for things that came out 20 years ago.
This dude is an edge lord. Gladiator isn’t perfect and wasn’t the best film that year, but it’s still entertaining as hell and has some incredible set pieces even 20 years later. I know very few people except for one or two film snobs who actively dislike Gladiator. I saw it in during its run and I bet there wasn’t a single person in that theatre that wasn’t thoroughly entertained.
And that’s even what Russell Crowe asks everybody in the movie!
“His opinion is different than mine, therefore he must be trying to be an edgelord!”
I can confirm – At the end of the screening, I blocked exit and did an informal poll with my lungs, vocal chords and clipboard, of each moviegoer to find out whether or not they were entertained.
I can see that it’s a fun, dumb hack-and-slash, but my point was that it is in no way a “great” film or deserved to even be nominated for Best Picture in 2000. I will add that it’s a deeply pretentious film which was plainly desperate for an Oscar, which makes it a lot less fun than many action movies which are equally stupid.Put another way, it’s very funny to see Scott favorably compare Gladiator to superhero films when the large majority of MCU films had better writing and direction than Gladiator. I would rank Gladiator alongside Age of Ultron or Black Widow – not as bad as the lesser Thors, but nowhere near as good as even minor films like Ant-Man.
Oh come on… I’m an MCU defender and even I think that’s a ludicrous statement.
It’s not a defense of the MCU! It’s an acknowledgement that Gladiator is just plain bad. The average MCU film is 2.5/4 stars, Gladiator is 2/4. I think you are elevating it over MCU because it is more “serious” but that does not make it a better movie. It just makes it more insufferable.
Gladiator rules and your opinion is bad. It has great performances, great action setpieces, and immaculate visuals. Your supposed consensus isn’t a consensus at all. Just lame contrarian backlash to anything that gets popular. It has 4.0 on Letterboxd, an 8.5 on IMDB, and an 87% Rotten Tomatoes audience score, so the idea that the consensus has turned against it isn’t a supportable thesis.
Okay simmer down man. Really amazing to see this not two comments after you criticized me for preferring the MCU to Gladiator:“Just lame contrarian backlash to anything that gets popular.”My opinion is not contrarian: the average Rotten Tomatoes score for the MCU is 84%, compared to Gladiator’s critic score of 77%. The median MCU score is 86%. A lot of critics at the time shared my opinion about Gladiator: its plot is idiotic (far dumber than even Age of Ultron!) and its action scenes suck (being full of violence and amateurish editing does not make a movie exciting unless you are a dumb teenager). It’s only saved by its performances. It is quite telling that you clearly read the critic’s score for Gladiator and decided not to mention it. Yes, the audience rating is higher but, assuming you are a grownup, you should know that means absolutely nothing. People like me who didn’t like Gladiator aren’t rushing to IMDB to give it a 6/10, it’s instead fragile fanboys like you flooding the rating with perfect scores. I don’t care what the audience score is: the *critical* consensus was never that strongly in favor of Gladiator. Maybe you should read a negative review of Gladiator and see what their arguments were?
It is quite telling that you clearly read the critic’s score for Gladiator and decided not to mention it.I didn’t mention the critics’ score because the larger group of people is more relevant when discussing consensus and because the vast majority of the critical scores (maybe all of them) were set in stone 21 years ago whereas the fan score is fluid and continually updated as opinions change. If you’d said “critical consensus” from the beginning, then I would have certainly used that score. Even though that critical consensus could have changed significantly in the last 21 years. The median MCU score is 86%.The median MCU score is massively overinflated. And I say that as someone who enjoys most MCU films. Rotten Tomatoes scores in general have been rising over the last couple of decades for a variety of reasons. it’s instead fragile fanboys like you flooding the rating with perfect scores.I’m neither fragile nor a fanboy. I don’t rate films on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes and I gave Gladiator a 4/5 on Letterboxd. I don’t think it’s a perfect movie by any means, but I hate it when people try to bolster their own shitty opinions by falsely claiming that they’re the consensus. Maybe you should read a negative review of Gladiator and see what their arguments were?And you could read a positive review to see what people like about it. But both of us have seen the movie, so our opinions are unlikely to change. Which is honestly fine. You’re allowed to dislike a movie I like. But pretending that your statement has the weight of consensus when it doesn’t is sad.
all of these metrics are as meaningful as nlecompte has more stars on a “gladiator sucks” comment then your “gladiator rules” comment.proof is in the pudding. gladiator has terrible set pieces, blurry action sequences (god those arena fights still give me blurry flashbacks) and godawful writing. I remember my 18 year old self rolling my eyes after hearing the “what we do in life echoes in eternity” bs. theres enough intermittent and unnecessary slow-mos in the first 20m to give any given sunday a run for its money.
no i was not entertained.
all of these metrics are as meaningful as nlecompte has more stars on a “gladiator sucks” comment then your “gladiator rules” comment.Damn. Hoisted by my own petard.ETA: Oh wait… Are you actually serious? I thought you were joking. I mean, they’re not on par with a peer-reviewed study or anything, but they’re certainly more meaningful than a handful of comment stars on a poorly trafficked pop culture website. Even if just barely.I don’t remember having any problems with blurriness and I last saw it a couple of years ago. Maybe get your eyes checked? Yeah, some of the dialog is hammy and the whole thing is a bit over-the-top, but that’s fun? I rewatched The Matrix Sunday night and it’s still awesome too. Action movies being a bit silly is okay.
It still seems pretty broadly liked by people who aren’t movie nerds (which is funny given his “I don’t make films for the unwashed masses” attitude), but its reputation definitely ain’t what it used to be.It’s also over 20 years old, so it’s still not much a counter against “he hasn’t done anything great lately.”
For all of Gladiator’s faults, I never thought it had bad action scenes? If anything, I struggle to think of anyone in western cinema who’s better at depicting sweaty, brutal, historical action than Scott.
Oh… is that the consensus?
Also a pretty strong opening scene goes a long way to excusing sins.
ding ding ding.
The counsellor is criminally underrated. It’s gleefully batshit insane from start to end. It deserves more love. I’ll also die defending prometheus.
Ridley really isn’t an auteur. He’s a visual stylist and director for hire and while he has a fairly good eye for picking scripts, he’s not a writer. His worst movies tend to be the ones where he has input on developing the story, like his awful Alien sequels. So not all his movies will be winners. He’s the kind of director who will make lots of movies and will get lucky every now and then with a great script. Remember after the one, two punch of Alien and Blade Runner, there was like a decade of middling efforts until Thelma & Louise, then another decade until Gladiator. I thought The Martian was pretty good. But I thought his best work of late were his episodes of Raised By Wolves.
True, that is definitely the kind of filmmaker he is. And Gladiator and The Martian weren’t bad, but were they great? I don’t think so. I liked them both well enough but I haven’t had any desire to rewatch either of them.Unlike many people, I have a soft spot for Hannibal, it has a baroque sadness and longing to it that I can’t help but dig, in spite of the messy script and severe lack of Jodie Foster. Hopkins’ performance is mesmerizing. But it’s a very flawed movie, no doubt about that.Honestly, thinking about all the great moments he has delivered (even throughout stretches of less than perfect movies), I do want him to succeed. But this old man nonsense is giving me cancer.
But Raised by Wolves was awful, and I really wanted to like it.
The kind of awful I’m going to watch the second season of, though.Would’ve been better if it was solely about the two robots. Less is more.
Also I’ll never get over that one woman shouting “JESUS CHRIST” and I had to, like, rewind it several times to confirm it. Either it was a mistake that they forgot to edit it out or the Christian church is alive and well in the far, far future and for some reason got usurped by this sun thing.
that freaking worm and non-ending just about ruined it for me. and they hold the world record for times saying Campion.
We’ll have to disagree on that one. I enjoyed alot of it, especially the episodes he directed. The show went off the rails in the last couple episodes.
People apparently forgot Ridley directed the excellent Duelists, a couple of years before Alien.
The Last Duel was actually rather good, though I admit I may be confused since I was looking at my cell phone through most of it.
Aside from all the ones others had mentioned (I’d say Gladiator, The Martian, Prometheus and The Last Duel are all at least good, even if none match the incredibly high bar of Alien and Blade Runner), I’d like to take this chance to give Matchstick Men a shout out. It’s a fantastic film with everyone – Scott, Cage and Zimmer especially – clearly having a blast and doing some of their best work in return. Then again I’d also stick up for the campy trash of Hannibal so take my opinion with a grain of whatever seasoning was sprinkled onto Liotta’s fried brain.
Matchstick Men is great.
You can’t mention Matchstick Men and leave out Sam Rockwell!
He’s great in it too! But he’s playing a very dependable Rockwell type – the other three seem to either be trying more than usual (Cage – it’s one of those rare roles this side of 2000 where his tics and wild mannerisms seem to naturally work rather than stand out) or doing something new (it’s fairly low-key for Scott and Zimmer’s score is more playful than his big epics). Rockwell’s flaw is that he’s so reliably great that this – to me – isn’t one of his standouts despite being fantastic. As are all of the cast – Lohman and Gill are great too. All I’m doing here is talking myself into a rewatch.
You know what, I haven’t even seen that one. I’m gonna check it out, thanks for the pointer!
Never even saw a trailer for The Last Duel, but can’t get away from House of Gucci, also Ridley, which is looking like it’s only not going to flop financially because of Gaga and Driver, but the reviews are awful.
Being a Gen X’er, I generally blame all the generations before and after me for everything. Why not throw this on the pile?
I’m gonna bet putting Good Will Hunting, Batman and Star Wars guy in it might have been a recipe for failure
No. they were all good. the movie failed because it’s target audience is Gen X and older and those people don’t turn out for movies as much
Here in Poland this got sandwiched between Dune, Venom and Eternals. I had no fucking chance to see it, even though I wanted to very much – arthouses barely played it because they wanted to get the Dune money and big cinemas just never give a fuck about smaller or weirder films (Neon Demon ran for maybe 3 days).
Joke’s on him, I watched a bootleg of this film on my cell phone, and still didn’t learn anything!
45 day theatrical exclusive window killed seeing this in theatres for me, with basically 2 months to VOD nowadays there’s a lot more waiting for video nowadays
another period piece with sad white straight people? Seen it far too many times to want to see yet another one.
Am I out of touch because kids don’t want to see a historical epic based on an obscure French incident set against the backdrop of Charles VI and the Caroline War?—No. It’s the kids who are out of touch.
In the middle of a pandemic!
Is it really some shock that nothing is doing “well” this year by historical standards, and the top-grossing movies are all the 27th sequels or spin-offs of recognizable IP, the cinematic equivalent of comfort food?
Maybe he should look back on his own catalog to see what sells. Gladiator sequel Hint hint. Lol not really…but maybe.
Revenge flick about Majorian hunting down Ricimer and restoring the Roman Empire to it’s peak glory, with a sequel stinger of Zeno hearing the news in his throne room and saying “Then it’s time to send a letter to Alaric…” and cut to black?
Hey! I resent that! I saw The Last Duel, and I’m a young… I’m a ……
{sobs quietly}
I mean… the world would be a better place if they WERE more interested in something like this.
Not even mentioning the fact that its based on a brutal rape told from the perspective of the two men it affected and basically not giving a shit about the woman that was raped at all
Yeah, you said it better than I could, but that’s 100% why I didn’t see the movie. Who has time for that shit?
Actually the whole third act is told from Marguerite’s perspective.One could argue that the entire point of the movie is to show the same incident from different perspectives, and to highlight the flattering lies the men tell themselves about how they are the real victims here.
Too late the millennials and their phones have already made up their minds before seeing it and they can’t be reasoned with
I think Kaleb highlights the social media problem.When the film was announced people had problems with Affleck and Damon doing a film about rape, and bringing Scott into the mix doesn’t help. And Disney just didn’t do enough to counter the negative buzz from people’s preconceptions.
Oh I know, this whole story reeks of “two-sides-ism.” No. A woman was raped, and I believe her accusation, and frankly, her rapist got what he deserved.
This is a very wrong take. The film is adamantly not two siderism: We objectively know the woman was raped and who did it, and the guilty party gets punished. The whole third act is literally from her perspective, highlighting that her voice was absent from much of the records of the event.
Supposedly in the movie the events are related from three perspectives, and the victim is one of them (the one the movie regards as accurate).
OTOH, thank you to Ridley Scott for maintaining the illusion that millennials (some of who are pushing 40) can still be counted among the youths
God as my witness, we’re going to replace baby boomers as the dominant force behind culture and entertainment for decades!
If you look at this movie through the lens of your 21st century values, yeah, you are not going to like it. Guess what, that is how shit was back then (700+ years ago) AND I think the writing team (not Ridley Scott) did an excellent job of telling the story. Yes, the first two chapters are told from the men’s point of view, but the final chapter is told from Marguerites. Guess what, her POV is brutal, truthful, and powerful and is made more so when juxtaposed against the first two narratives.This movie does not romanticize the period in anyway expect in the deluded POV of Driver and Damon and the supporting role of Affleck.But if you can’t get past the fact that its set in the 14th century and about a rape, well I am sorry you will miss one of the best films of the year.
If you look at this movie through the lens of your 21st century values, yeah, you are not going to like it. Guess what, that is how shit was back then (700+ years ago) AND I think the writing team (not Ridley Scott) did an excellent job of telling the story. Yes, the first two chapters are told from the men’s point of view, but the final chapter is told from Marguerites. Guess what, her POV is brutal, truthful, and powerful and is made more so when juxtaposed against the first two narratives.This movie does not romanticize the period in anyway expect in the deluded POV of Driver and Damon and the supporting role of Affleck.But if you can’t get past the fact that its set in the 14th century and about a rape, well I am sorry you will miss one of the best films of the year.
I’m looking forward to watching it. At home, on my TV (or my phone, mind your business, old man).
I thought the Last Duel was a very well done movie. But I am not going to fault anyone who feels a 2 1/2 hour historical movie that repeatedly portrays a rape from different perspectives, in all of which it is horrifying, might not be their entertainment of choice
This is the right answer. It comes down to three takes on one gross incident. Scott is good at visuals, and the leads are all engaging, but who wants to sit thru his beautiful looking broken stories? I also agree that EVERY director is going to blame his movie’s failure on some outside force or other.
Yep. Sitting through 2+ hours of intense focus on a rape was a no-go for me. The second I heard the premise I was like, nooooope.
It’s not really 2+ hours of intense focus on rape.
I’ll probably never know, because the description of the movie sounded off-putting enough that I’ll probably never see it…but that’s good to hear.
Understandable reaction. I will say that there have been a lot of women who saw it who have been vocal about really liking it. Roxana Hadadi, who has written here in the past, has been encouraging people to listen the discussion about the film she participated in on Pop Culture Happy Hour.https://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=1046010633:1046025234No pressure to listen to the podcast or to watch the film intended. Just some food for thought from someone who thinks it’s the best film of the year so far.
well, I do love me some pop culture, so…queueing it up now. Thanks for the recco!
I’m sure it’s not. But it’s still the story of a rape and what precipitated it told through three different perspectives, and that’s about three times too many for me. ETA: I think it’s worth noting that people’s experience of what a film is “about” will differ. To you, it may not have an intense focus on rape, but for women watching that same film, a rape in a film may loom much larger, even in scenes that aren’t explicitly about that rape.
Curious whether you watch other movies about dark, depressing subjects. No judgement either way. I just find it somewhat odd that people who presumably watch other serious films about other weighty topics are noping out of this one sight unseen. I’ve personally been putting off watching Irreversible because I’ve heard that it’s particularly brutal, but The Last Duel doesn’t have that reputation from people who’ve actually seen it as far as I can tell. I certainly get not wanting to risk retraumatizing yourself if you’ve been a victim, but I do have a problem with the people out there who are seemingly taking it as an insult that the film was even made, as if art shouldn’t address painful subjects.
Yes, I do watch other dark films with regularity. Most years I watch most Oscar contenders and then some. I’m not averse to serious movies. I saw Promising Young Woman as soon as I could get my hands on it. The Last Duel never appealed to me at all, for a number of reasons. For the most part Medieval dramas aren’t my thing. The trailers weren’t particularly compelling. And mostly, yeah, I heard about the subject and the structure and I didn’t have much faith that the writing team of Affleck and Damon (even with a female collaborator), combined with Ridley Scott directing, could produce a film that dealt with rape in a novel way. The Last Duel is essentially a movie about the long tradition of not believing women when they report their assaults. I don’t need a movie to show me that. I’ve seen women live that experience my whole life. I’ve seen movies depict that my whole life. So I get what you’re saying, but here’s the thing for me: If you’re going to tell a rape story, you better convince me that you’re doing something that’s worthy of me watching yet another film where the plot revolves around or is motivated by the rape of a woman and whether or not she is telling the truth. That goes doubly so if the film is going to spend 2/3rds of its time telling that story from the men’s perspective. I know men rationalize raping women. I know that they don’t see themselves as the bad guys. I have a ton of thoughts on this, but it would take forever to get down and Alissa Wilkinson’s review for Vox touches on most of what turned me off to the movie and why I avoided it.https://www.vox.com/22713175/last-duel-review-ben-affeck-matt-damon-adam-driver-jodi-comer-rape
Thanks for sharing that article. The author makes some good points. Though I strongly disagree with this one:
If you’re already inclined to think Me Too has gone too far, that women today probably overplay allegations of sexual assault, then The Last Duel gives an easy out. At least, it’s easy to think, we’re not like them anymore.That’s a both bad faith reading of the film and an insulting assumption about its audience. It’s also an inconsistent argument. She’s arguing that the film isn’t necessary because it doesn’t have anything new to say (which I and many others disagree with) and that the message is ultimately just that men lie and we should believe women. But then she notes that there are a lot of people out there who still haven’t gotten that message and we’re still fighting these battles today. So it both is and is not relevant to 2021. I’ve seen several reviews from female critics who liked the film, but I’m sure you could find those on your own if you’re interested. All I can really speak of with authority is my own experience with the film, one that was quite positive despite my initial reservations.
I’m glad you had a positive reaction to it. I’ve read positive reviews of the film and they didn’t particularly sway me to devote my time to it. I’m OK with that.
Totally fair. There’s a lot of content out there and no one can see everything or even just everything notable, so we all make choices on which things to skip. It’ll still be around if you change your mind somewhere down the road I’m sure.
Sending a second response since I’m just now seeing your edit. For sure, the rape casts a shadow over the entirety of the film to some extent. After seeing it depicted for the first time in the second version of events, I was dreading seeing it again in the third. And I totally understand that that could be even more traumatic for someone who’s a sexual assault survivor. Or even just under more credible threat of sexual assault as a woman. I’m not intending to delegitimize those feelings at all or act like it’s a happy, sunny film. My only point is that it’s not all rape, rape, rape from the first frame to the last. It’s about friendship and honor and truth and toxic masculinity and women’s rights more broadly. The rape is the inciting incident, the reason that the rest of the story is told. But it’s doing the film a disservice to act like it’s rape trauma porn.
Plus I’m pretty sure Rashomon is available for streaming somewhere.
I’m guessing no ghosts are summoned in this one, too.
Last Duel is actually a sort of cinematic response to Rashomon, in a fun kinda way.
Um..hate to break it to you, but Rashoman is about rape AND murder.
Yeah like, I wouldn’t mind streaming it at home, but having to sit for 2.5H getting the male points for most of the thing is just…hard pass.
I will say what I liked about the structure was that it was clearly: one guy’s wrong POV, another guy’s wrong POV, and then her correct POV
Huh, noted. Can I ask how you know they’re wrong (without hitting spoilers) – like, is it tone, etc?
You know her story is the correct version from context and also the way the text that introduces each section is written, the others are described as each guy’s story and the final version drops her name & then introduces it as basically THE story
Ahh, thanks!
It’s very much a refutation of “we can never know what happened”, the film definitely has a morally satisfying point of view in that regard. There are two scenes that are genuinely tough to sit through, but the rest of it is mainly court intrigue, psychological investigations, and a bit of brutal medieval action.
Huh, noted. Honestly a good decision given the central focus.
Well shit, people watch Maid… and the Handmaid’s Tale… and whatever misery porn is hot these days. I don’t understand it. Women will watch little baby kittens run over by a steamroller, as long as it’s set in England.
I think in actuality he blames the Will Smith album the “Willennium” for his film’s weak North American box office performance.
Is the proper term for Smith’s children “Willenials”?
I want to see it. Just not in a theater during a pandemic.
Yes, as a Selfish Millennial with an interest in “not dying of a highly-contagious disease” this theatrically-released film just didn’t resonate with me, for some reason.
To be honest, it looks good, but it also totally seems like the type of movie you watch at home, maybe over the course of two or three nights. Put it on after dinner, watch for an hour and go to bed. People also seem to not comprehend how old millennials are. I’m 34! I’m constantly tired. Your 2.5 hour period piece, while interesting, will literally put me to sleep.
Exactly! The older millennials are turning 40 ffs. Yet many ppl seem to think 20 year olds are millennials, or even teenagers. Idiots.
Most of the Millennials I know are too busy taking care of their kids to ruin theaters, Applebee’s, etc. I’d say we’re well past the point of pinning them with “kids today” lamentations.Not knowing who today’s kids are is a pretty special brand of out of touch.
Today’s “kids” think 40-year olds are “boomers”, too. No one knows who anybody is at this point.
It really was a mistake to shift the nomenclature from ‘hipsters’ to ‘millennials’ since the former isn’t partially tied to a specific genenation!
You’re really not supposed to be “tired all the time” at 34! 34 is still young. Unless you have young kids and you never get to sleep, of course. Otherwise, time to re-evaluate your lifestyle a bit. Take it from me, a stranger on the Internet whom you asked nothing of.
Are you vaccinated? If so, there’s really no risk in going to a theater. Especially ones where mask mandates are still in place.
Just the risk of being surrounded by strangers, walking on sticky floors, sitting in public seating, not being able to pause the movie or control the volume, not being able to eat what you want, etc. 😉
I am vaccinated, but I haven’t had a booster and within the last 72 hours I came down with a cold(?) so bad I had to get a COVID test to make sure I didn’t have a breakthrough case. This illness comes just a few days after my office’s first major in-person work event in two years, where I (masked) was dealing face-to-face with primarily unmasked individuals, outdoors, for about 4 hours. How I feel right now doesn’t fill me with confidence about public gatherings (which sucks, since I just bought tickets to an arena show in a month and a half.)
Just last week I was talking movies with somebody and said I’d probably be comfortable returning to a theater at this point, but getting to the movies PRE-pandemic was already enough of a hassle that no current release has been enough to get me back. I mean, I just got around to watching Dune this past Sunday on HBO Max, a thing I’ve had access to for a month, when a friend reminded me “Oh yeah, that’s going away tomorrow.”
If you aren’t getting vaccinated then you are absolutely selfish.
Yes Mr. Scott, everything stinks…
This isn’t the first time a director blames the audience in some capacity that their movie failed. I’ve heard other directors both famous and not well known that complained about how their movie didn’t receive enough love. Plenty of directors including Scott in the past have said something like that back in the early 2000’s, the 90’s, the 80’s. Audiences, or the studios, or politics, or anything. Maybe there’s some merit and maybe there’s not. In the end it doesn’t matter. The results are in. It is what it is. The only director I know of that deals with it and moves on is John Carpenter. Yeah he may have his complaints, but he also just recognizes it is what it is. Sometimes a movie’s success is about the timing as well.
Ridley’s been watching Bill Maher again.
Hmm
I’m sure that little cloud feels terrible.
He’s becoming one of those people you really wish would just shut up.It at least I do…
he’ll be dead soon and that’ll be one less person who does not share your worldview. so cheer. soon enough all the rational intelligent people will be gone and all the dumbasses from Gen Y can enjoy the mess they’ve created.
…so how old are -you-? Been vaccinated? Feeling under the weather at all lately? Just curious.
none of your business. none of your business. none of your business.
As a millennial I’m just glad people are still thinking about us and that gen z hasn’t yet stolen all of our press.
Much like how the 90’s was last decade even though it’s actually been more than 20 years, anyone younger than a Boomer is a Millennial.“It’s these damn 27-40 year olds with their phones and their newly-acquired neck and back problems! These middle-aged youths with their MySpaces and their Napsters, attending rainbow parties instead of seeing my Rashomon Rape Movie!”
On the other hand, I’m like damn, when can we start blaming Gen Z for stuff?!
Mr. Scott is Abe Simpson.
Who told you about my avocado toast?
I wanted to see it but I missed it… I must have had something else going on that weekend and then forgot about it. I’m vaccinated, live alone so I don’t have to worry about passing it on to anyone if I did get it, and live about a mile from my local AMC, so I use my A-List a lot; I’ve seen 19 movies in the theater since May. I mean… it just didn’t really have a hook. I didn’t know it was based on a true story and Matt Damon’s hair looked so stupid. I’ll watch it when it’s available for download. But Ridley, come on… You’ve been making movies forever, you released a flop when people are still living by pandemic rules. Get over it.
I know nothing about this film but that photo of Damon and Affleck is enough for me to never, ever be interested.
Is art good because people like it, or because of some independent quality of the work? Discuss, because I don’t fucking know (despite having studied that exact question in great depth).
Art is good/bad when one particular person likes/dislikes it, namely me.–All Art Critics
While this is certainly a case of an old guy complainin’ about the young-ins, I can commiserate to a degree. I have to admit I’m getting tired of explaining “plot holes” or stuff that “didn’t make any sense” to people who “watched” films or shows and, I quickly learn, have these complaints because they were also doing something on their phone the entire time. Like, come on.
Yeah, he’s kinda, sorta, slightly right in a grumpy old man kind of way, if slightly out on the age group he’s grumbling about.
I’ve got two nieces and two step kids in the 12-16 age range and getting any of them to sit down and concentrate on one single thing for more than about half an hour is like wrangling cats. Unless it grabs their attention (and sorry Ridders, Marvel movies are designed to do just that) then it’s not going to work.
Basically if he thinks it’s bad now, wait four or five years. Maybe Quibi’s biggest mistake was launching too soon.
I have a friend who’ll play some bullshit mobile games on his tablet during movies (the type you have to a play every day to get random “rewards”), get up to cook, literally go take a shower while it’s still on, and then has the nerve to casually announce the movie good or bad when it’s over.
You have one friend too many.
He has qualities in other areas, but I’ve refused to watch anything that looks promising at all with him for years. I’m the exact opposite; if I miss one line of dialogue I’m annoyed.
I hate people when check their phones at the theater. But Ridley Scott is using “millennials” as an excuse for a movie that flopped. People didn’t even went to the theater in this case.
Yeah, my 70 year old dad does that.
I hate hearing Ridley Scott speak, but The Last Duel was exceptional.
Well, this millennial saw it in the theater. And liked it quite a bit. Check and mate, Sir Scott.
RS: You know, everyone has a right to their opinion, and I realized that many, many, many, many, many years ago. There are many, many, many different layers. There’s a layer which I call the great unwashed, which is my favorite expression. It’s very rude and it’s fucking meant to be, because I don’t make movies for that lot.I had been leaning toward supporting Ridley’s POV, but after reading the above quote (from the AV Club interview with him that’s currently on the homepage), I’m very, very, very glad his movie failed commercially.
Yeah it’s extremely difficult to take the director of *Gladiator* seriously when he pretends he doesn’t make dumb movies for ignorant people (and still, 21 years later, brags about how many awards Gladiator won). What an ass.
It brings to mind this Onion article:.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/ridley-scott-trades-russell-crowe-to-tim-burton-for-joh-1819571507/amp
Jesus, that’s some classist shit from Scott right there.
I think he’s talking more about people with horrible taste than actual poor people who can’t afford soap or whatever
But he’s linking the two. He’s using a derogatory expression aimed at the working class as a stand-in for people with, in his mind, no taste. Having no taste = being bad. Being part of the general, unpriveleged masses = being bad. The classism is tacit, but it’s there.
It could be two things.
I don’t know why I find it funny when he says it but absolutely horrified thinking that is what most politicians think about us. Probably something very wrong with me.
Normally I wouldn’t begrudge and old director for reminiscing about the past but, fuck Scott. He isn’t and never was an auteur. RSA is a production mill and Scott isn’t an involved director. Vera Myer directs most of Scott’s first unit, no matter what she’s handed. Luke Scott as well on second unit. Scott’s name gets him the budgets, and his dumb ideas often sink his films, because he was never that good in the first place.
Seriously: Christian Bale as Moses?
Can you elaborate on what exactly this means? So he basically relies on others to direct his movies? How common is this?
Yeah, I know assistant directors do a lot more work than most people know (like in say a Marvel movie, the director usually has little to no involvement in filming the action sequences that make up a good chunk of the movies), but I’m curious as to how bad Scott is about it. Is this a Garfield situation where other people do literally all the work and slap Jim Davis name on it?
Personally, I think it’s these dadgum kids with their Pokey Men and their boomboxes and their wild pot parties that are at fault.
Not to mention their loud music, hula hoops, fax machines, but the biggest fad these days: KARAOKE! WEEEEUUUUGHHAYUKAIE!
You kids with your Beck, and your pagers, and your big baggy pants, AHHH-IDon’tKnow…I love that gag on MST3K.
Also, points for spelling out one of TV’s Frank’s weird noises. Dovetailing from that, I just watched Poopie! on the YouTubes. I just love them so much.
And the rap music, it gives them the brain damage.
I’ve never heard of the Last Duel, so that might be a small part of it.
Here’s a quick synopsis about the movie:
I’m glad that old people are still confusing all us 30ish millennials with those damn kids. Makes me feel younger.
Millennials have always been people younger than you that you don’t like, regardless of how accurate the label is. Gen Z were born after the Millennium, largerly, so it makes no sense.
He’s a big pussycat with wet whiskers.
2010 Robin Hood2012 Prometheus 2013 The Counselor2014 Exodus: Gods and Kings2015 The Martian2017 Alien: Covenant2017 All the Money in the WorldWas it because of Ridley Scott’s stellar output in the last then years of was it because millenials?
shit. shit. shit. shit. fantastic. shit. very very good.
It’s the children who are wrong!
Don’t forget, he’s also been producing adaptations of Bill O’Reilly books.
I was always going to watch Shang Chi today, but now I’m going to do it spitefully.
Ridley Scott hasn’t made a good movie since Gladiator and it’s the youngish people’s faults
One day, he will. But not yet. Not yet.
Blackhawk Down, Matchstick Men, American Gangster and The Martian are all better than Gladiator.
saying “millennian” and not “millennial”Maybe he actually meant to say “millenarian,” as in millenarians envision a future free of dumb Ridley Scott comments?
He meant milliners. For some reason, hat-makers just don’t get into Scott’s work.
It’s because the big hats they wear make it hard for others to see the screen.
1) Millennials are between 25-40 by now, at this point it’s more likely they missed the movie because they have kids lol. 2) Is there a universe when this is a huge hit? Even leaving out the subject matter, I don’t think medieval-set movies do all that well usually, unless they’re fantasy.
I don’t think medieval-set movies do all that well usually, unless they’re fantasy.
While this is true, Ridley Scott has been a pretty consistent exception. Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood both did pretty well despite their mediocre reviews, and in a broader “historical drama” sense, Exodus did alright and Gladiator was obviously a smash. Prior to this the worst-performing historical drama he made was 1492, which still managed to at least bring in more than its budget.The big difference, of course, is those were all spectacle-laden epics and this is Rape Rashomon. I think it’s an interesting story, but he was absolutely insane if he thought it was going to be a smash hit under just about any circumstances, let alone during a pandemic.
Rashomon is already “Rape Rashomon.”
You know, I can’t argue with that.
The Last Duel: what if Rashomon, but even more rape?
I’d say Last Duel is partially a response to how rape was handled in Rashomon by removing the ambiguity and making it a story about how the patriarchy silences and further victimized victims both individually (the men themselves) and socially (the justice system).
I love period pieces. I’m just not interested in seeing a movie that’s all about rape and “how hard that is for men” while Matt Damon wears that hair piece in a movie I never saw a trailer for.
Guess you never heard of Braveheart?
I can come up with the following reasons for people to not have seen this movie off the top of my head:- It’s a relatively obscure story- It concerns rape, which is off-putting for a lot of people- Scott’s output has not been great in recent years- Small-scale historical films have always been a bit of a niche genre, regardless of generation- Did you hear about that virulent pandemic, Ridders?
Yes, but the milleniumists!
Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!
Also, Millennials/Millennians always immediately turn on you the moment you try to call them out for anything.
And who are we blaming for the underperformance of 75% of the other movies Ridley Scott makes going all the way back to the 1970s? If you see one asshole audience, you’ve seen one group of assholes. If you see asshole audiences most every time you put out a movie, maybe you’re the asshole.
If he wants to blame audiences, do it right. The problem The Last Duel had was that wasn’t part of a franchise.
They should have called it “10 Duels Before Last” and do a whole countdown until the last.
I didn’t get a smartphone until I was 17, and I’m a fairly young Millennial. What do you imagine my Razr did to me that made me unable to appreciate obscure historical epics, Wiggly?
but he thinks young people “do not ever want to be taught anything” unless it’s done “on the cell phone.” Being a period drama, then, The Last Duel and its timely themes just couldn’t connect with perpetually disinterested millennials and their cell phones.
The last duel in French history happened in 1967.
Your fucking title is wrong historically. You are not a teacher, and you don’t know your shit well enough to even pretend to be.
Now just retire and die, whinyass bitch.
It’s about the last judicial duel (aka “trial by combat”), and the title came from the book it’s based on.
Then it’s based on a book with a title that’s wrong ^^
He’s 400 years old who cares what he thinks.
I’m not a millenian – I’m an….X-man??? Anyways I find everything about this movie uninteresting and…oh sorry new cat video.
I’m totally happy to carry this blame. Making Ridley Scott sad is a huge thrill, honestly.
I meant to catch this at the movies but missed it. I’ve heard it is actually a very good film and I look forward to watching it when it comes available for streaming.
Or I just didn’t want to watch a 3hr film about rape.
This was never more than an arthouse flick, did he expect Marvel numbers?
If I stream it on my phone, does he like me then?
STICK TO PRODUCING, RIDLEY!And stop blaming other people because your output has been lousy for a long time. Yeah we already argued about this in a previous thread and my opinion stands: The dude is overrated and he thinks he’s a lot more talented than he actually is.
What is the over/under that old Ridley still thinks Millennials are teenagers and does not realize they are starting to turn 40?
Using that theory he should have put it on Quibi. We all know how that worked with “the kids”.
He’s right. And you know he is right. You just dont want an older person telling you this. You can go find 100 comedic skits right now about how glued people are to their phones.I have two teenaged nieces. And it’s not just them. It’s everyone else as well. Except me.
It’s incredible tiresome how people think Millennials are current teenagers and young adults. Most Millennials likely can remember growing up without a smart phone or even high speed internet (I personally didn’t have a smart phone until after college and high speed internet until late high school). And it’s somewhat ironic that Ridley is harping on people not wanting to be taught about something while using the Millennial label ignorantly. Also – did he forget about the pandemic that has caused every movie to underperform for the last few years? Even the surefire blockbusters aren’t making what they used to.
Huh. And here I was thinking “Unprecedented global health crisis” as the cause of low box office.
That reminded me to check if it was on any streaming services, legal or otherwise. I want to see this movie. I ain’t going to the theaters. Maybe the old farts in the industry will learn that the distribution landscape has changed, and not only is it never going back but the next consumer/business battle is already being waged there (services wanting their own piece of the pie). But I doubt it.
Yeah, let’s just all toss our smart phones in the garbage so Ridley Fucking Scott can feel better.
As a young that likes history, this movie should have interested me, but I only saw two ads for it and completely forgot it existed until this article.
I’m going to go see it looked pretty good just haven’t gotten around to it!! I’m 22 so not that old lol
I am older than Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, so I am not a Millennial and I have been looking forward to watching this film because the technique they used to write it sounds interesting, but like most everyone else, I will wait to stream it when it is included with one of my subscription services. The movie business has changed.
The movie greatly surpassed my expectations, I think it’s Ridley’s best one in a long time, but sheesh…he’s fuckin’ 83 years old and he certainly sounds his age here. And it sounds like he thinks “millennials” are the current 18-24-ish young adult cohort but obviously that’s Gen Z…no surprise that he’s behind on that, too.Oh well…as long as you just stay away from the Alien franchise for good now, Ridley.
I respond to this they same way I respond to the “please go see our movie in the cinema!” desperation trailer I saw last night for The House of Gucci: to get me to come to the movies, you have to make a movie I want to see in the first place.
What is this man talking about? I know plenty of people excited to see this movie but I live in a major metro area in the US and it still felt like only a couple theaters carried this movie for a week at most
Old man yells at a cloud….. but he is right as you Millennials suck ass and not in the good way!
The Last Duel is one of those films that would have struggled even pre-COVID. It doesn’t feel like a theatrical must-see. It’s a rental.
But people don’t rent movies like that anymore. They wait for streaming. But that makes significantly less money.
Maybe he meant Millenialists. Damn those evangelical Christians waiting for the Apocalypse for not going to the theater enough!
Agreed. Kids nowadays…
The wigs scared everyone, Ridley.
Does he not know that Dune came out a week after his movie?
It can be both.
Kids not interested in something that happened centuries ago and an old man thinking he shits gold.
Meanwhile, everyone of all age groups: “The Last What? First I’m hearing of it.” Imagine a world where people could see trailers on their phone. Oh wait, that’s just called reality, Ridley. Such a great promotional job they did there for a movie people never heard of, Ridley.
I think the younger folks who were going to be interested in such a movie would be looking for something that looked more like the real Middle Ages — this movie seems like its view of what those times look like is stuck in around the time that Ridley Scott would’ve been going to school, around 7 decades ago.Scott could’ve made a fantasy, based on history. Instead he tried to make a historical movie.I will see it when it streams someplace, when I’m not risking my health to do so.