In its cast and duration it is assured of its own strengths but they are misplaced, not just in the small anachronisms ( language': ''moving on'', ''situation'') but also contemporary custom, and, more significantly, in the overall structure.
Presented in the Rashomon form the empirical details between each tale are not so varied as to be very interesting. There are minor nuances of emphasis but not enough to make them worthy of being presented in 3X40 minute chunks.
The most telling difference, and one that exposed the whole medieval mentality, was in the section devoted to Driver's version of events. There the character makes confession after the event and with a form of post hoc logic that would not stand up today, he believes he's exonerated. This was a very common view at the time and allowed men of his status to commit the most dreadful acts to anyone, as long as they settled their account with God.
Apart from that sequence, and the meaning it carries, the film's story is rather obvious and offers little, apart from the high production detail and simulated violence. This view is somewhat underlined by the epilogue.
There are questions as to why French actors and French writers were not employed on this as this genre of film is made well in France and they know the history. Certainly, another writer might have seen the core problem in the narrative and how to shift it.
The cast were fine enough, though that sense that the world and the words they are portraying are foreign to them is inescapable.
Driver looked imposing while Matt Damon drew the unlucky characterization with a mullet that looked more at home in a trailer park.
Presented in the Rashomon form the empirical details between each tale are not so varied as to be very interesting. There are minor nuances of emphasis but not enough to make them worthy of being presented in 3X40 minute chunks.
The most telling difference, and one that exposed the whole medieval mentality, was in the section devoted to Driver's version of events. There the character makes confession after the event and with a form of post hoc logic that would not stand up today, he believes he's exonerated. This was a very common view at the time and allowed men of his status to commit the most dreadful acts to anyone, as long as they settled their account with God.
Apart from that sequence, and the meaning it carries, the film's story is rather obvious and offers little, apart from the high production detail and simulated violence. This view is somewhat underlined by the epilogue.
There are questions as to why French actors and French writers were not employed on this as this genre of film is made well in France and they know the history. Certainly, another writer might have seen the core problem in the narrative and how to shift it.
The cast were fine enough, though that sense that the world and the words they are portraying are foreign to them is inescapable.
Driver looked imposing while Matt Damon drew the unlucky characterization with a mullet that looked more at home in a trailer park.