the leading man is my tpye

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Well, when people can ask you for a rendez-vous the following morning because you wrong them, you must be cautious... But what happen when someone become addict to duels? This story, as already explained is one of a long feud between two napoleon's officers. This movie is a jewel, costums, ambience, behaviours are so good that i am surprised that actors do not speak french. Carradine is good but Keitel is absolutly fabulous. During the first duel, he looks like a bird of prey asking himself how to ripe apart his adversary. A must see

Twenty stars. Words fail me in attempting an appreciation of this marvellous and timeless creation. The uniforms and changing fashions alone make it uniquely worth while. It must be one of the two or three finest films ever made, and reduces me to a sense of critical inadequacy. The story's narrative trajectory is simultaneously subtle, absorbing and sublime. Somehow, at its end, I feel as though I have lived through, or shared, twenty years of dramatic change in European history, identifying with two relatively everyday but complex men; both exceptional but simultaneously ordinary; and have experienced entering another age, alien but somehow familiar. The casting throughout is ideal: these protagonists are not stars, though they are unusually keenly drawn. Carradine is a member of the reserved and courteous upper bourgeoisie, Keitel a boorish revolutionary firebrand, with his baton in his knapsack, thanks to Napoleon, but scrapped with the little corporal at the end. I wouldn't want anyone else in these parts, and find the suggestion that they should both be speaking early 19th century French unbelievably risible. Every other role is filled to perfection. This director always gets the utmost best from his actors. Somehow there seems to have been a conspiracy of multiple accidents, weatherwise and otherwise, combining to make a mockery of the miserly financing allotted to Ridley Scott. This makes it even better than Blade Runner, perhaps also because Conrad outranks Dick in the authorship stakes, and provides a palpably superior literary base for the way the plot unravels. One for watching well into retirement. The sword-play and other confrontations are compellingly realistic. The women in this men's world are stunningly touching. The past is a different country, but I've actually crossed swords with a latter-day Feraud in my own everyday life. Yes, it's a class issue --- not really about honour.

At the beginning I was growing a little bored with this film, a lot of talk and nothing much interesting at that. Slowly you do get a sense of the two main characters and who they are, what they want, and there is the plot. Two soldiers at each others throats through the Napoleonic era from a simple silly cross of words. It sounds almost stupid but the story shows great human emotion as you follow Carradine's character, watching him grow weary and tired of the feud. Whilst at the same time Keitel is perfect as the egotistical and virtually combat obsessed Feraud who loves a good duel. Feraud's quick temper and short fuse causing the main quibble and many others throughout the story. As time passes we see both characters change and grow in terms of attitudes and maturity as well as looks and styles throughout the age.This is where we see Ridley Scott's attention to detail and his master of visual art. The film looks stunning all the way through from start to finish, the costumes are lavish and accurate right down to the buttons on the men's tunic's (certainly looks that way anyway). The sets are small but look highly authentic whilst the landscapes of Europe are sensational! How Scott got the shots as he wanted is beyond me because it looks as though he made a deal with God for some, he must have waited some time for just the right weather to arrive. Whats more amazing is this was all achieved with no CGI assistance of course. Its all very real which makes it even more impressive and shows just what you can do if you put in some hard graft and really really care about what your doing without simply relying on the lazy digital way out.You would never guess this was made 34 years ago now, the stunning visuals and story play out just as well as any modern historical epic. The sword fights may be few and far between but look perfectly realistic, it really does look as though the men are really having to think about their next move, what they're gonna do next to try and survive. No fancy over the top movements, stunts or showboating for the camera here, its all very strategic looking. I loved the way D'Hubert pauses just before the start of one duel to simply sneeze. Intended? I don't know but its a nice little touch that just makes the moment that little bit more realistic...and aristocratic.Seeing as this was Ridley Scott's first film its a hell of start and really shows his potential. The only thing I would say is the film makes you wanna see more of the history going on around the main characters, alas you don't really see much. Its tantalising and hints at it making you want more but the story feels a tad restricted at times. Watching these two chaps bicker like children over nothing in a very polite way can get a tiny bit stale, but overall you still can't help but adore what you're seeing.9/10

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