Film Reviews by Philip in Paradiso

The film could be described as a thought-provoking erotic social drama that has elements of a psychological thriller too. It takes place in today's South Korea. The central character is a young woman coming from a poor background, called Eun-yi. She is perhaps a little bit naive and is described in the film as a good person. She is hired as an au-pair girl by a very wealthy family - a lot of the film dwells, directly or indirectly, on the huge gap in wealth between poorer, hard-working South Koreans and the small elite of ultra-rich bourgeois types, who sip expensive red wine and listen to European classical music, living in secluded palatial mansions. Eun-yi is due to help Hae-ra, the beautiful housewife who is pregnant with twins. She is married to a powerful and successful businessman, Hoon. Eun-yi must also look after the couple's young daughter, Nami. Eun-yi moves in and discovers the life of a domestic servant.

Despite the fact the story takes place in South Korea - and unlike what often happens, in my opinion, with Chinese or Japanese films - it is easy for us to relate to the situation, which has an upstairs/ downstairs element to it (think Downton Abbey in 2010, South Korean-style, but far slicker and much sharper). The characters are expressive and we follow their emotions and reactions quite easily, and they are easy to comprehend. The film is very well-made and superb aesthetically. To the social element, i.e. the tension between the social classes, there is, added to the mix, intense erotic tension, as the maid is, inevitably, involved in the intimacy of the couple employing her. This makes for a very interesting and captivating film.

I have 2 reservations, however. The 1st one is that the storyline, somehow, follows a slightly predictable path for much of the lead-up to the climax, which can be a little bit slow at times (i.e. the first 70% of the film). The 2nd one is that the ending, in my view, is not completely convincing or plausible. It only works up to a point. As a result, it is a very good film, but it is not the masterpiece it could have been. 'Parasites', the 2019 South Korean movie also focused on class differences in society, is that masterpiece (and the 2 films are quite different in some ways).

This is a romantic comedy/ drama set in today's Norway. It is a film about sentimental relationships between young men and young women. The focus is on a girl called Julie, who is the central character. She works in a bookshop to fund her studies. She changes courses, not being too sure what she wants to study and aim for. She meets a range of men and, with some of them, has serious relationships. (I don't want to say too much not to spoil the story for the reader of this review.)

The film is, somehow, charming and insightful. It is realistic overall, in my opinion, although there is a 'magical realism' episode in the middle of the movie that sits there rather oddly. It is most likely the viewer will recognise many of the situations depicted in the film in relation to dating, sex, relationships, marriage, children, splitting up, love, etc. The acting is good; in fact, I found the acting of the male lead actors better than that of Julie's, but she is a convincing young woman on a quest. She is not sure what she wants and what she should aim for. She is not sure who or what she is. She is looking for meaning in her life in order to make the right choices. She is not sure she wants a partner who is intellectual (too intellectual is boring...) or not intellectual (too unintellectual is boring). At times, she is annoying because of her behaviour: there is something immature, egotistical and even selfish about her, at any rate in the first 70% of the film. Towards the end, the movie changes as the narrative changes and, with it, Julie.

Overall, I enjoyed it, although I found it a bit too long. It could be a good TV drama. It is not a bad film. If you like sentimental dramas of this kind, you will be delighted, I think. And young Norwegians seem to be surprisingly talkative, articulate, sensitive and sentimental - all of it expressed in their rather guttural language. But is it a great film, as some reviewers have implied? Certainly not. The story is simple, somehow. It is moving in places, but it is not a masterpiece. It is even a bit shallow, in some respects, because Julie can be viewed as profound in some ways and rather superficial in other ways. Still, it may make you think about the characters, what they are, who they are, why they did what they did, etc., after you have seen the film, which is always a good sign.

The film depicts the life of Lawrence of Arabia and the role he played in helping to organise the Arab uprising against the Ottoman Turks in the Middle East during WWI. It is a great classic, generally considered to be one of the best feature films of all times. I had never seen it in full (there are 2 DVDs, in total about 220 mins, i.e. 3 1/2 hours). I found that the movie is as good as its reputation and lives up to it.

Peter O'Toole, as Lawrence, is remarkable, even if the portrayal of Lawrence in the film has been criticized by some historians, inevitably, in terms of the way his life and character are interpreted. Other actors are also very good, including Omar Sharif and Anthony Quinn as Bedouin warlords. It seems to me that the context at the time is well rendered, in a realistic way overall. We understand the interplay between Lawrence and his slightly idealistic plans for Arab independence and the harsh reality of European (British and French) colonial ambitions. The Bedouins and their tribal leaders have genuine agency, which is also interesting: they are not at all the passive 'natives' that a less subtle movie might have represented. The big picture is never neglected and this puts the life and role of Lawrence in context in an intelligent manner. There are many gripping action scenes and the film never feels overlong or dated.

So, the film works on many levels and will grab you, whether you are interested in the life of Lawrence and the politics of the Middle East at the time or not. It is a must-see.

William Tell (actually the character's name, played by Oscar Isaac, charismatic and captivating) is a professional gambler. He taught himself how to count cards during an 8-year sentence spent in a military prison. He is a loner, who tends to win but avoids big gains, to avoid drawing attention to himself. He is self-contained, detached from the world, seemingly without a personal and sentimental life, and without friends. There is something enigmatic about him, and we gradually learn why he is the way he is. The movie is, really, about what happens to him, and how he changes over the course of the film, and why.

The story gives you an insight into the world of gambling and casinos. It is very American - the America of suburbia, motels, motorways, and so on. I have been to Las Vegas and it reminded me of the city and its gambling dens. Personally, I found the plot broadly implausible, but I cannot elaborate as I don't want to spoil the film for those reading this review. The young man playing Cirk (Tye Sheridan) is, also, in my opinion, rather annoying and unconvincing: you feel you are watching a sulky teenager moping about - but, perhaps, that is precisely what he is supposed to be.

On the other hand, where the film is very good is at creating a captivating atmosphere: this is done very well. There is something cerebral, contemplative - meditative, even - and claustrophobic about the movie, also because of the central character's lifestyle and personality. The key theme of the film, ultimately, is: what does it mean to belong, and how do you integrate into society? What if you are going to be on the margins forever, and what does it mean if you are? This may sound pretentious and too intellectual, but the film touches upon these questions in a subtle way, through the story and the character of William Tell - a vey odd choice of name all the same... As a result, it is a rather unusual film, but an interesting one. I would not say it is excellent, but it is a good movie, despite its obvious flaws. I enjoyed watching it, overall.

The film purports to be an adaptation of the 1785 novel, 'The 120 Days of Sodom', by the Marquis de Sade, with the story's setting being changed to the World War II era, i.e. to the dying days of the Fascist regime in Italy, the Republic of Salo (1943-1945). It is Pasolini's last film, released shortly after his murder (he was killed in mysterious circumstances on a beach near Rome in November 1975). I was curious to see it, as it has been surrounded by controversy since its release.

The movie is centred on 4 rich and corrupt middle-aged pro-Fascist libertines who have about 20 local teenagers (boys and girls) kidnapped and detained for 4 months in a mansion, under armed guard. (The 4 dignitaries of the Fascist regime have a retinue of thuggish armed guards.) Among the teenagers are the 4 men's own daughters, who are treated no better than the others.

The film, illustrating the story by de Sade, transposed into the 20th century, shows us what happens to the teenagers, who are horrifically and ritually humiliated, victimized and abused in the course of their 4-month-long detention. The 4 men in charge take great pleasure in torturing the captives in a myriad different ways - psychological, physical, and sexual. Recurrent themes in the film include homosexuality, rape, sodomy, masturbation, incest, group sex/ orgies, voyeurism, exhibitionism, defecation and coprophilia (including eating human feces), sadism, pedophilia, among others.

You can look at the movie on different levels. First of all, as a film, it is reasonably well-made, but no more than that, in my view. (It has been hyped up in certain quarters.) It is pretentiously intellectual in some ways, since the 4 torturers have literary urges alongside their baser instincts. It is quite long (nearly 2 hrs): personally, I was relieved when it came to an end.

Second, as an adaptation of the novel by de Sade, it revels in the depiction of sexual depravity in all its forms (with special emphasis on anal concerns): I have not read the novel by de Sade, but suppose that the main themes would be found in it. (The word 'sadism' is derived from de Sade's very name...) Finding pleasure in inflicting pain on others is the central theme and activity in the movie. This can only appeal to someone with sadistic tendencies, since it is hardly an enlightening study of such sinister instincts that we can learn from, through watching the film.

Third, the movie can be seen as a condemnation of Fascism through the medium of the allegory: the sadism of the 4 Fascist grandees is what Fascism is about, the director seems to be saying. The problem is that this is, basically, the message: a very simple message that you can sum up in one sentence (Fascism is depraved). I do not object to the statement, but do we need 2 hours of graphic depravity in order to be told that this is indeed what Fascism is? In the course of the (pseudo-) demonstration, the film inevitably indulges in what it denounces, turning into a voyeuristic, pornographic spectacle.

In conclusion, the movie is an ordeal to watch. It is a pretentious, provocative film, built around a mixture of unappealing genres, which include pornography, gore and horror. After nearly 2 hours of it, you have not learnt very much. It is repugnant. Avoid it.

On a similar theme (but focused on Nazi Germany), 'The Damned', by L Visconti, on the other hand, is a masterpiece. This film isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Damned_(1969_film)

The film is set in South Africa in 1979: it is the - true and amazing - story of 2 white South Africans who were jailed in the central prison, in Pretoria, for having taken part in anti-Apartheid activism in South Africa. With the help of a 3rd inmate in the prison, right from the start, the men decide that they will do all they can to escape. One of them has the idea of replicating the keys used to open doors by the prison guards: the 3 prisoners will make replica keys out of wood, and simply open all the doors of the prison until they are out...

Virtually the entire film is centred on the men's situation in the prison and the repression they are facing from the prison guards, as well as on their plot to escape. The movie is a tense thriller in many ways, within the parameters of the genre. It is an interesting film, with a lot of suspense, and I enjoyed watching it. However, it is not quite as gripping as it could have been: there is something subtle that is missing. Some critics have argued that the film lacks depth. So, it is a good and interesting film, typical of the genre, but no more than that.

In 1996, Gary Webb (Jeremy Renner) is a new reporter at the San Jose Mercury News, a local Californian newspaper that generally does not cover national news. G Webb stumbles across a cocaine-trafficking ring and this leads him to Nicaragua. He soon realizes that the right-wing Contras, who have been fighting the left-wing, neo-Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, may have been allowed to sell large quantities of illegal drugs (cocaine) in the USA with the American government turning a blind eye, or even collaborating actively with them. The plan, hatched by the CIA, was for the proceeds of the sale of cocaine to help fund the right-wing opponents of the Sandinistas.

The movie is based on true events. G Webb was instrumental in exposing the conspiracy and the role of the CIA. What is interesting in the movie is, in fact, not so much the conspiracy itself and how it is exposed, but what follows, and what happens to G Webb, who expects this scoop to turn him into a highly respected, star journalist. The film shows how the federal government and the CIA handle the fall-out from G Webb's investigation, but also how the US press, including famous national newspapers such as The New York Times, respond.

The film is well-made in every respect and captivating. It is in the classic American tradition of the genre: a dedicated and sincere journalist takes on the powers that be and the US 'deep State' in his quest for truth, regardless of the danger this puts him in. It is a good film, no more than that, but worth seeing.

This is an interesting and slightly odd film. It takes place in 1980s Argentina, when the military junta is asserting its control over society, which it intends to 'cleanse' and 'purify' of subversive elements. People disappear. The Church and the State work hand in hand with the military. In the midst of all this, a Swiss banker (private banking) arrives to take over from his colleague, who has mysteriously disappeared. He arrives with his wife. His intention is to meet all the bank's clients and preserve his client base.

The film is very good at re-creating the atmosphere in the country at the time - an atmosphere of anguish, dread, fear and menace. Tension is in the air. Even among the upper echelons of society, who are incredibly privileged, fear is ever-present. The dilemma for the Swiss banker is, of course, to know how far he is prepared to go in terms of working with members of the elite who may be compromised with a repressive, neo-Fascist regime.

The movie is almost cerebral. It seems to be built around a concept, and that concept is that of absence: absence of freedom, absence of democracy, absence of safety, absence of moral principles, absence of people (who disappear), the absence of the central character's predecessor (who has vanished into thin air), etc. That absence is a kind of threatening void, always present and never talked about. That void is at the heart of the film. As the central character - the Swiss banker - moves about among the sophisticated and secretive members of the upper class and the regime, things are hinted at rather than said. Everything is understated, in the style of Swiss banking, in a way.

The problem is that all this dramatic build-up leads to a climax that is not really a climax: a kind of cinematic coitus interruptus. And the film comes to an end, leaving you a bit frustrated. The movie is so understated and low-key, in that Swiss banker's kind of way, that it ends up being a little bit like its central character - a bit dull and too slow, in the manner of a cautious Swiss banker. So, an intriguing and somewhat intellectual film, which may have been over-rated by reviewers, who have presented it as a (minor) masterpiece.

The film is set in the mid- to late 1980s, in the USA, and is focused on Ted Bundy, the notorious, sadistic serial killer (he would have killed at least 30 women). The 2 key characters are Ted Bundy, who is in jail, and Bill Hagmaier, the FBI agent who has been asked by his superiors to interview him at length. The aim of the process, for the FBI agent, is to try and develop an understanding of what led T Bundy to act the way he did; if one can understand someone like T Bundy, the theory went, it would be possible to catch such serial killers more easily in future or, even, to detect them at an early stage and prevent them from killing too many people. The movie is realistic and based on true events (such a criminal-intelligence programme did exist in the USA at the time).

T Bundy's life and misdeeds are indeed fascinating in that grim and gory way that violent crime and sadistic criminals can be. (You can have a look here after watching the film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy.) You would imagine that, with such rich and macabre material, the movie would be a gripping thriller, half-way between a gory horror movie and a dark detective story. And yet, the confrontation between T Bundy and the FBI agent feels surprisingly flat and generally devoid of tension, much of the time. The most interesting part of the film is towards the very end (the last 20 to 25 minutes). The actor playing T Bundy (Luke Kirby) is reasonably good but not exceptional. As to the FBI agent (Elijah Wood), with his bulging, bright-blue eyes, his funny-looking face, and his small stature, he looks like a frightened frog caught in the headlights of a speeding car in the middle of a country road at night.

Overall, the film is strangely interesting, and yet frustratingly underwhelming, as the expression goes. By the end of it, what have we learnt about serial killers and about T Bundy (who he was, what he did, and why): actually very, very little. Maybe this is intentional: the monster remains a mystery to the end. It is so easy, however, to imagine what another director could have achieved with such material: a masterpiece, presumably. All we have is a reasonably interesting film about a twisted individual who may not deserve all the attention, i.e. T Bundy. The movie merely scratches the surface of T Bundy's life: I found the Wikipedia article about him more instructive and more interesting than the film, which is not a good sign, really.

This is the story of fashion house Gucci, in Italy, in the 1970s. A glamorous and strong-willed social climber, Patrizia Reggiani (played by an astonishingly good Lady Gaga) flirts with, dates and eventually marries a clumsy, shy and unambitious heir to the Gucci fashion empire, Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). This is a family saga combining business, ambition, love and lust in a surprising manner.

The film is good from start to finish, in my view, and I enjoyed watching it. Some have compared it to a soap opera: I think that is unfair. It is better and more than that. The story itself (as it happened then) is quite amazing, and the film seems to be faithful to the known facts. However, the film has some flaws. The actors speak English with an Italian accent (the movie takes place in Italy and the USA, and the characters are supposed to be Italian, bar a few of them); the only one who is truly convincing is Lady Gaga (who is American, but of Italian extraction). Lady Gaga's accent sounds real, but it is more than that: her mannerisms, her attitudes, her reactions are convincingly Italian. I wouldn't say that of the others, and I found Adam Driver relatively unconvincing on every level (but, then again, I have always felt that he is over-rated). The film may be a bit overlong too (at 2 hrs 30 mins).

In the last analysis, it is a good film, but not a masterpiece. Without Lady Gaga, it could well have been a rather dull flop. But her striking performance is simply fabulous. She saves and carries the film all by herself, from start to finish. It is not a movie about the House of Gucci, but about Patrizia, the intruder: you end up waiting to see what she is going to say or do next, all the more so since she seems to enjoy rocking the boat. She is simply fantastic, with her unconventionally attractive looks. So, the focus of the film is her, and she rises up to the challenge with gusto. On this basis, I would recommend the film and would say it is worth watching.

In around 1880, members of a gang of outlaws called 'The Cowboys' are in control of the town of Tombstone, in Arizona. When Wyatt Earp, a retired police officer, decides to settle down in the town to start a new life, together with his 2 brothers, Virgil and Morgan, and their respective wives, the 3 of them are soon in conflict with The Cowboys. This is the - true - story of the Wild West confrontation that led to the fight at the OK Corral, and what followed.

This is a very well-made and convincing movie, which is well-paced and well-acted, re-telling the well-known (and still fascinating) story of Wyatt Earp and the OK Corral gunfight. The film is without major surprises to anyone who knows the historical events, as it re-creates them in a generally faithful manner. It is a classically made western, albeit a fairly recently produced one (1993): it does not call the nature of the genre into question. Overall, I would certainly recommend the movie (more particularly if you enjoy westerns) and I enjoyed watching it, but I would not say it is a masterpiece. It is still a classic of the genre.

A footnote: There are some historical inaccuracies in the telling of the story, inevitably. One of them is that the fight did not actually take place at the OK Corral. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral (This, in itself, is not important.)

Also, Wyatt Earp is somehow sanitized in the way he is portrayed in the film. There is no doubt he was a very courageous lawman, who never flinched in fist and gun fights. What the film does not dwell on is that, apart from his role in law enforcement, his entire life (not just the Tombstone episode) was largely devoted to gambling - if only running and owning bars that doubled up as, in effect, casinos. Also, the Earp brothers were involved with prostitutes. At one stage, Wyatt Earp himself was involved in pimping. One of his brothers ran a brothel for a period of time in another town. Wyatt Earp's partner, in the film, was actually a prostitute (or former prostitute), accurately depicted as addicted to laudanum. Finally, Wyatt Earp's other business interests involved mining.

This is a historical film that gives an excellent and fascinating insight into life in the USSR under Communism and, more particularly, in the days of J Stalin, just after the Second World War. It is also a love story and a romantic drama: the fate of one couple, specifically, is at the heart of the story. Their travails become emblematic of all that is wrong and tragic about the Stalinist system. (Incidentally, the action does not take place in Russia but in the Ukraine.)

In 1946, Stalin calls on all White Russian émigrés who had escaped to the West after the (Bolshevik) Russian Revolution of October 1917 to return to the USSR. It is presented to them as their duty and a great opportunity: they can help rebuild the devastated motherland in the wake of the Second World War. They are told they will be given Soviet citizenship, accommodation and jobs. Many Russians established outside the USSR decide to go back. Among this group is the émigré Doctor Alexei Golovin (Menshikov), with his French wife, Marie (Bonnaire), and their young son. When they arrive in the USSR, the Soviet, Communist dream soon turns sour...

The film is very good on many levels. The acting and the plot are very convincing and ring true. The reconstitution of life in the USSR at the time is excellent. We are gripped by the fate of the Franco-Russian couple at the heart of the story. As their predicament deepens, the movie somehow becomes a thriller, full of tension, suspense and surprises. Even if you are not particularly interested in the history of the USSR and Soviet Communism, you will find the story fascinating and moving. I strongly recommend this film.

In the 1980s, Rory O'Hara (Jude Law), who is English, and his American wife, Allison (Carrie Coon), live a very comfortable middle-class life in New York City with their children, Ben and Sam. But Rory is ambitious and restless. He feels the next step in his career must take him back to London, where he can work in the City again. (In the past, he was a very successful trader in London.) So, the entire family moves to a splendid mansion in Surrey. But things do not go entirely according to plan...

Jude Law is a good actor but it is Carrie Coon whose acting and personality steal the show. The story is narrated in realistic mode. It is not a thriller. It is not even, really, a sentimental drama. It is a 'social drama', you could stay, about ambition and greed (Rory's) and what it can do to a man and to his immediate family. The story line is remarkably simple and rather predictable. Mostly, there is no tension. It is all a bit flat. You are always waiting for something memorable and big to happen, and, every time, somehow, it is a bit of a damp squib. I am not too sure what is wrong with the film - overall, it works - but one thing is, in my view, absolutely clear: the characters lack depth (except perhaps Allison) and are not really interesting; the story lacks texture and relevance and is not really interesting; so, to conclude, it is not a bad film, but it is not a very interesting movie either. Somehow, it is not necessary.

The film has been hyped up way beyond what it actually means or does. Not that much actually happens in the first 60 mins (and it is about 1 hr 45 mins long!). In my personal opinion, it is not half as interesting as many commentators have claimed. I was disappointed: I expected much better - something more riveting and more complex. If you think about a film such as 'The Wolf of Wall Street', for instance, you realize that 'The Nest' is not in the same category: It is in Economy as opposed to Business class. Give it a miss.

In 1982, an Englishwoman, Anne (Julie Christie), starts an investigation into the life of her great-aunt, Olivia (Greta Scacchi), whose diary and letters she has inherited. Anne’s research into the life of Olivia takes her to India, where Olivia's life is told in flashbacks. In 1923, during the British Raj, Olivia has come to join her husband in Satipur, in central India. She has recently married Douglas Rivers (Christopher Cazenove), a civil servant in the district's colonial administration. So, the film moves in parallel on 2 levels: on the one hand, in the world of today (at the time of the release of the film, i.e. 1983), and, on the other, in the world of yesterday - the colonial society of 1920s India. The destinies of the 2 women, predictably, will come to mirror each other.

The movie explores what India means to Anne and what it meant to Olivia, through their interactions with the local people. The 2 stories and the 2 periods are, therefore, interspersed. What the movie is very good at is re-creating the atmosphere of the British Raj, and what it meant to be British in India at the time: we realize how the relations between the Europeans and the 'natives' were, inevitably, codified in the extreme.

Olivia, for her part, does not respect those rules and expectations: she is a transgressor. That is what makes her interesting, and Greta Scacchi is radiantly beautiful, playing in a subtle way the part of this seemingly shy and reserved very young Englishwoman, who, in fact, is nothing of the sort. The 2nd story, however, is far less interesting. It comes across as rather banal, somehow, as compared to the 1920s narrative. The contrast between the 2 plots makes this obvious: the story set in the 1980s has the tone and style of a TV drama rather than an insightful feature film; it is fairly predictable and lacking in depth or passion, in my view.

If Merchant Ivory had focused purely on Olivia's story, it could have been a great film. But the combination of the 2 stories (as per the novel that the film is based upon) does not really work, and the movie feels slow and overlong at times, mostly on account of the story of Anne. As a result, the movie is worth watching and very interesting in places, but, fundamentally, it is a bit disappointing. One could give it 2 stars instead of 3, if it were not for the very good acting on the part of Greta Scacchi and a few others. ['White Mischief' is a masterpiece, as compared to this movie: it is set in 1940s Kenya and far more compelling.]

This is the story of the last duel of the medieval period in France (1386) that took place between 2 noblemen from Normandy (in France): Matt Damon as Sir Jean de Carrouges and Adam Driver as Jacques Le Gris. At the start, the 2 men are friends who take part in various battles of the Hundred Years' War between England and France on the side of the French king. However, over time, they fall out and become enemies: Jean de Carrouges feels that Jacques Le Gris has been unduly rewarded (with land holdings and an official position) at his expense. The last straw is when Jean de Carrouges' wife, Jodie Comer as Marguerite de Carrouges, accuses Le Gris of having raped her. Le Gris denies it. De Carrouges challenges him to a judicial duel. The duel is sanctioned by the king and actually happened (the whole story is true): it is very well documented. The idea was that, whoever survived the fight to the death would have told the truth before God, hence the other one was a liar, was guilty and deserved to die.

The film is very good mostly, in my opinion, on 2 levels. First of all, it re-creates the atmosphere, culture, hierarchies and mores of the Middle Ages in a way that seems quite accurate and realistic to me. This is quite rare for a big-budget movie like this. Second, the acting is extremely good - more particularly that of Matt Damon, as the humiliated husband who wants revenge, and Jodie Comer, as the wife who wants justice. (Incidentally, her part is far from minor in the film, and neither is her point of view with regard to the whole story, contrary to what some reviewers have written.) On this basis, the film could easily have been outstanding.

Unfortunately, there are several flaws in the way that the story is presented. The main one, as pointed out by other contributors on this site, is that the story is presented in 4 parts: the story as told from the husband's point of view; as told from the defendant's point of view; and as told from the wife's point of view; with, finally, the fight between Le Gris and his accuser (which is part of Chapter 3). This makes the story repetitive and, almost, over time, tedious. It feels laborious and contrived. It is a huge and incomprehensible mistake that Ridley Scott made, because it slows down the film in a terrible way and kills the pace of the story to a large extent. The other thing it does is make the film longer than it needs to be, at 2 1/2 hours. Finally, the story takes place in France but the characters speak with a mixture of English and American accents, which does feel weird at times!

Still, the initial presentation of the story and of the characters, at the beginning, and the last 45 mins or so, including the breathtaking duel at the end, are exceptionally good. Of the 3 versions of the story, that presented by the wife is, in fact, overall, the most interesting, credible and moving. So, on balance, I do recommend the film, but one can only regret the format chosen by the director. Without this bizarre choice, the movie could have been a masterpiece.

If you want to read up on the true story, do so after watching the film. Here, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Carrouges