Fresh and Exciting

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

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

I have watched this film so many times I know the dialogue off by heart. It is, in my opinion, the best film ever made. Everything about it is "just so", some things by design and some through serendipity such as when the two horses kiss just at the moment General d'Hubert gets down on one knee to popose to his lover.

I rarely go out of my way to write an unabashedly positive film review. With Ridley Scott's classic here, I have to say that it hit all the marks of excellence I can possibly think of: a) It is interesting, suspenseful and entertaining; b)It combines action, adventure, quiet philosophical moments and a great portrait of an era, without being a simple period piece; c) It had created compelling and somewhat mysterious main characters who are thrilling to follow, through the entire story; and d)although it doesn't preach, it contains a moral and offers a commentary on life. In short, it is a complex, thoughtful and yet fun film. It is also violent, on a certain level, but the violence isn't gratuitous but rather there to illustrate a way of life.'The Duellists' is set in a fascinating era, the Napoleonic wars, and in the professional soldier class. These guys were extremely capable and were a kind of an elite, in their own way. Because it is an exploration of the concept of 'honour' and one can say a commentary on those who perhaps pervert or take honour too far, the film cannot avoid making a detour into somewhat socio-political matters...and yet it stays away from politics (no questioning whether Napoleon was good, bad, etc). It is refreshing to see this. The characters are what really drives the story here. They are both developed well, presented in a setting that's always evolving, and even though it's mostly a story of their intense rivalry, the story feels believable and the characters seem like men of flesh and blood (not mere caricatures, which is a trap many historical films fall into).Last but not least, this film is visually very appealing, with interesting angles, imaginative, artistic use of light, and very serious attention to detail like uniforms, manners, the look and feel of the early 1800s, and the nice, pastoral French landscape. So it was very easy on the eyes.There are so many newer films and so many blockbuster-type movies that failed to make a lasting impression on me. The Duellists is in the opposite camp - I could watch it three or four times and still appreciate it.

Ridley Scott has a great reputation, making films like Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator and is offer known for his grand and ambitious style. He started his feature film career with the historical drama The Duellists, following D'Hubert (Keith Carradine) and Feraund (Harvey Keitel), two French Army officers and their rivalry from 1800 to 1816, battling across Europe. The Duellist is a beautiful looking, clearly influenced by Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, using natural lighting and giving the film a realist look. Scott did replicate the time period and the atmosphere, particularly with the freezing cold, windy climate of the Russian winter. There are strong sword fights and The Duellists is surprisingly violence for a PG rated film whilst exploring the hypocrisy of the ideas of the honour when it turns men into savage beasts.The Duellists is strong debut from Scott who went onto greats, making a film that easily appeal to fans of historical films, period dramas and Barry Lyndon.