The movie is split into chapters, each one with the title, "The truth according to" whichever character. On Marguerite's chapter, as the new chapter text fades out, hers is the only one where "The truth" lingers on screen. I also thought it was completely obvious
I also noticed that. The other two times it fades normally and all at the same time. I actually checked that out after niloticing that just to be sure lol
@@naderzein2435 I was listening to a pair of film critics on a podcast and while one liked it a lot, the other said she didn't because the woman was just a pawn for the men to fight over and I'm over here like...Yeah, that's the point of the movie, and it spends almost half its runtime looking at that injustice from HER perspective lol!
@@naderzein2435 she didn't know that she could be burnt when she spoke out. dam this dude doesn't even remember the story he directed. i guess everyone is dumb when they speak out in anger.
The film literally says "The truth according to Marguerite Carrouges" and then fades to just "The Truth", as if you couldn't stamp the point any clearer. It's like people didn't even watch the film.
I love how real Sir Ridley Scott is … and he is absolutely correct in asking, “how stupid can these people be?”. Clearly, Le Gris was guilty! I guess the misogyny of men is a hard habit to break!!!
she didn't know that she could be burnt when she spoke out. dam this dude doesn't even remember the story he directed. i guess everyone is dumb when they speak out in anger.
I don't wanna be disrespecful, but it hurts me the point of view of people about movies based or inspired by comic books. But at the same time, I understand...
True, but she didn't know that she could be burnt when she spoke out. dam this dude doesn't even remember the story he directed. i guess everyone is dumb when they speak out in anger.
@@elenavorobeva6747 ngl that was a bit harsh I confess as I truly enjoyed the first two perspectives as the first one laid the story and the second didn't have many scenes that overlapped instead filled in the gaps. However the third perspective(victim) repeated some scenes and changed completely how some things happened(and I'm not referring to the rape here btw but all the other shit like the scene where the knight comes home from war and hugs her in the first perspective and not the third infact chooses not to hug her in the third). I mean if you wanted to make it that whatever she said was "true" then doing it from the start was a better idea instead of making the audience watch scenes that would basically be deleted. In addition I find it highly suspect that they showed the victim as seeing everything as "the truth" instead of showing her perspective filling in some gaps like what was done with second perspective and then letting the audience decide since it would have created more of a cliff hanger and perhaps a better ending. In truth, I really see this film making process as being bias towards "believe all women"/"believe women" agenda among others.
Another thing that I noticed on the movie (its a small detail): In the Court, someone says "His majesty, King Charles VI". But the classification/designation of Kings using numbers is a historian classification. No one used IV at the time. Most likely they would say "King Charles".
0:15 "ALL MY BrOs DIdN't BeLIeVe THE WoMAN WaS AKSHUALLY RApED HurR DuRR"" Are you all aware that you 1. Sound like an NPC misogynist 2. Directly insulted Ridley Scott and Jodie Comer to their faces? Ridley crafted a gorgeous film and Jodie delivered a nuanced performance but for some reason you entirely failed to understand the movie. I love how Ridley basically called you and your friends morons. Jodie could barely hide her disgust at your comments. You embarrassed yourself.
I dont think its fair for Ridley to have a go at us milenniels thinking its our fault thats the film failed. I like historical films i have not seen this film but i would be open to give the film a go. Maybe theres just too many movies to see these days you dont have to see everything. He has made historical epics that have been successful before like Gladiator. Maybe he just has to realise this film is not as good as that.
The base of this emotional true story is Marguerite of Carrouges bravery by exposing a rape situation to her husband and Lord, risking her own life. But the movie clearly shows that she only knew about this while being interrogated in the trial. I gess questions is: would she act the same way if she knew about this before? The movie also shows that naturally this is not what she expected.
Adam Drivers' character swore to the end that he was innocent. He's the quieter, more forgiving character throughout the movie, ready to give in. Given the way Matt Damons' character treats his wife and his constant urge to get even more powerful and richer. It doesn't seem entirely out of thin air that he could've made his wife lie.
Ридли Скотт это псевдо режиссёр в Голливуде, который не умеет снимать фильмы, он не делает свое кино, а нанимает профессиональных режиссеров и операторов для съёмки фильма. Скотт не платит деньги этим профессионалам, а потом убивает их.
The Madness of Crowds? Are we going to hear some Douglas Murray? Edit, having seen the interview: ... Oh... Right... This movie is the product of the madness of crowds...
Meh I don't see the point of having the first earlier perspectives if you're just gonna repeat what happened that the first 2 said and make the first 2 perspectives to be wrong in the third and what the victim says is the absolute truth and there is no question about that. I think this movie was to an extent playing on social justice movement and was biased in that sense with its creation.
@@walli7754 no I understood the POVs still doesn't make sense to play it out this way unless there's an agenda also I'm far from the only one that has given this critique of the film either
@@walli7754 dude it makes no fucking sense to give three perspectives then say the victim's memory was entirely true even though it contradicts on many critical situations with the knight's perspective for instance the hug scene after the knight comes back from war. It would have been better to give all 3 perspectives and leave the rest up to the audience in a cliff hanger sort of way and commence with the last duel instead of playing on an agenda of "believe women"/"believe all women"/"believe all victims" and basically making the first 2 perspectives worth shit and the final one aka the victim be telling the truth.
@@zaimnaqvi8893 I imagined before matt Damon killed him that she was going to open her trap and confess since they had the camera on her, the story would have taken a turn not knowing what’s going to happen. I disagree with you.
The fact that people still having this conversation if doubt after the movie clearly states much hasn’t changed .....what a film !
It has... They are just self centeted and like to tslk about themselves all the time. Narcissistics.
The movie is split into chapters, each one with the title, "The truth according to" whichever character. On Marguerite's chapter, as the new chapter text fades out, hers is the only one where "The truth" lingers on screen. I also thought it was completely obvious
I also noticed that. The other two times it fades normally and all at the same time. I actually checked that out after niloticing that just to be sure lol
The title card for part three literally says "The Truth" - pretty blatant, imo!
Exactly! I’m surprised by how something that blatant could go over some people’s heads
Exactly! It's like people didn't even watch the film. No wonder Ridley is frustrated lol.
@@naderzein2435 I was listening to a pair of film critics on a podcast and while one liked it a lot, the other said she didn't because the woman was just a pawn for the men to fight over and I'm over here like...Yeah, that's the point of the movie, and it spends almost half its runtime looking at that injustice from HER perspective lol!
@@two_owls it's frustrating as a fan of film seeing takes like that, I can only imagine how annoying it is for the filmmakers LOL!
@@naderzein2435 she didn't know that she could be burnt when she spoke out. dam this dude doesn't even remember the story he directed. i guess everyone is dumb when they speak out in anger.
One day ridley scott is gonna be the subject of a film
The film literally says "The truth according to Marguerite Carrouges" and then fades to just "The Truth", as if you couldn't stamp the point any clearer. It's like people didn't even watch the film.
My thoughts exactly
Ridley is always making me laugh lmao
I love how real Sir Ridley Scott is … and he is absolutely correct in asking, “how stupid can these people be?”. Clearly, Le Gris was guilty! I guess the misogyny of men is a hard habit to break!!!
she didn't know that she could be burnt when she spoke out. dam this dude doesn't even remember the story he directed. i guess everyone is dumb when they speak out in anger.
Give me a fkn break
Such a fantastic movie, I loved it. Thank you for making it. It's such a nice contrast to the comic book films. This was deep, layered and well done.
I don't wanna be disrespecful, but it hurts me the point of view of people about movies based or inspired by comic books. But at the same time, I understand...
It was really clear her story was the truth in the film, people really are just stupid. I love this man hahaha.
True, but she didn't know that she could be burnt when she spoke out. dam this dude doesn't even remember the story he directed. i guess everyone is dumb when they speak out in anger.
I love the way Sir Ridley let the audience decide what his film is about and then tells what he thinks really happened.
💜❤
The true essence of storytelling
I swear lol just bad film making pushed by an agenda
@@zaimnaqvi8893 you mean "great"? Never use bad filmmaking and Ridley Scott in same sentence(no offense)
@@elenavorobeva6747 ngl that was a bit harsh I confess as I truly enjoyed the first two perspectives as the first one laid the story and the second didn't have many scenes that overlapped instead filled in the gaps. However the third perspective(victim) repeated some scenes and changed completely how some things happened(and I'm not referring to the rape here btw but all the other shit like the scene where the knight comes home from war and hugs her in the first perspective and not the third infact chooses not to hug her in the third). I mean if you wanted to make it that whatever she said was "true" then doing it from the start was a better idea instead of making the audience watch scenes that would basically be deleted. In addition I find it highly suspect that they showed the victim as seeing everything as "the truth" instead of showing her perspective filling in some gaps like what was done with second perspective and then letting the audience decide since it would have created more of a cliff hanger and perhaps a better ending. In truth, I really see this film making process as being bias towards "believe all women"/"believe women" agenda among others.
Another thing that I noticed on the movie (its a small detail): In the Court, someone says "His majesty, King Charles VI". But the classification/designation of Kings using numbers is a historian classification. No one used IV at the time. Most likely they would say "King Charles".
They movie is incredible. I haven’t been blown away by a movie like that in a while. Ridley Scott never stops delivering
Also , how can Jodie Comer be SO cute? ❤️
Ridley Scott is crazy lol
You gotta love Ridleys answers here!
Wow he's 84 good for him.
0:15 "ALL MY BrOs DIdN't BeLIeVe THE WoMAN WaS AKSHUALLY RApED HurR DuRR"" Are you all aware that you 1. Sound like an NPC misogynist 2. Directly insulted Ridley Scott and Jodie Comer to their faces? Ridley crafted a gorgeous film and Jodie delivered a nuanced performance but for some reason you entirely failed to understand the movie.
I love how Ridley basically called you and your friends morons. Jodie could barely hide her disgust at your comments.
You embarrassed yourself.
I thought Ridley Scott was American by his movie choices, he is very British 🏴 !! although I heard him speak with an American accent before !
Well that gave away the entire movie ending, lol.
So did history.
I dont think its fair for Ridley to have a go at us milenniels thinking its our fault thats the film failed. I like historical films i have not seen this film but i would be open to give the film a go. Maybe theres just too many movies to see these days you dont have to see everything. He has made historical epics that have been successful before like Gladiator. Maybe he just has to realise this film is not as good as that.
Why are the accents all over the place?
The base of this emotional true story is Marguerite of Carrouges bravery by exposing a rape situation to her husband and Lord, risking her own life. But the movie clearly shows that she only knew about this while being interrogated in the trial. I gess questions is: would she act the same way if she knew about this before? The movie also shows that naturally this is not what she expected.
Adam Drivers' character swore to the end that he was innocent. He's the quieter, more forgiving character throughout the movie, ready to give in. Given the way Matt Damons' character treats his wife and his constant urge to get even more powerful and richer. It doesn't seem entirely out of thin air that he could've made his wife lie.
How stupid can you be? - Ridley Scott
The worst thing about the movie is that you had to watch that rape scene twice. Good movie though.
Ридли Скотт это псевдо режиссёр в Голливуде, который не умеет снимать фильмы, он не делает свое кино, а нанимает профессиональных режиссеров и операторов для съёмки фильма. Скотт не платит деньги этим профессионалам, а потом убивает их.
What the... thanks for the spoiler alert! Ruins the movie in the first 20 seconds!
The Madness of Crowds? Are we going to hear some Douglas Murray?
Edit, having seen the interview: ... Oh... Right...
This movie is the product of the madness of crowds...
She didn't know that she could be burnt when she spoke out... dam this dude doesn't even remember the story he directed.
"Get woketh go broketh" - knight parsival
Meh I don't see the point of having the first earlier perspectives if you're just gonna repeat what happened that the first 2 said and make the first 2 perspectives to be wrong in the third and what the victim says is the absolute truth and there is no question about that. I think this movie was to an extent playing on social justice movement and was biased in that sense with its creation.
... Right, I think you are missing the point of pov or, just, stories. Also, sorry dude, but you are the one projecting here lol
@@walli7754 no I understood the POVs still doesn't make sense to play it out this way unless there's an agenda also I'm far from the only one that has given this critique of the film either
@@zaimnaqvi8893... What agenda? Dude, I am sorry, it's more then fine if you did not like it but this is just dumb.
@@walli7754 dude it makes no fucking sense to give three perspectives then say the victim's memory was entirely true even though it contradicts on many critical situations with the knight's perspective for instance the hug scene after the knight comes back from war. It would have been better to give all 3 perspectives and leave the rest up to the audience in a cliff hanger sort of way and commence with the last duel instead of playing on an agenda of "believe women"/"believe all women"/"believe all victims" and basically making the first 2 perspectives worth shit and the final one aka the victim be telling the truth.
@@zaimnaqvi8893 I imagined before matt Damon killed him that she was going to open her trap and confess since they had the camera on her, the story would have taken a turn not knowing what’s going to happen. I disagree with you.