Before I get into the movie, I have to go on a rant.
I love seeing movies in theaters the way that they're intended to be seen; but, there is a drawback - the people. I drew the short straw and ended up next to four "adults" who actually find rape to be funny and can't help but snicker at the sight of a penis of a man who was stripped naked and displayed in disgrace. No, digital projection hasn't helped cinemas much; but, if theaters die, it'll be assholes in the audience.
Okay, that out of the way, it's a good movie. It's hard to really analyze this without massive spoilers; but, I'll try to keep the spoilers to the minimum and and give warning.
So, the movie is sent in late 12th century France and tells the story of a real duel between Sir Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) and squire Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver). The movie spent plenty of time and energy exploring how the relationship between the two men went from a brothership born in blood and chivalry to a trial by combat; but, the whole thing really comes down to the rape accusation by Jean de Carrouges' wife Marguerite (Jodie Comer) against Jacque Le Gris.
The movie makes good use of a Rashomon style of storytelling for the most part. We get the truth according to Jean, then the truth according to Jacques, and finally the truth according to Marguerite. What the movie gets right is casting each character in the light of another person's perspective and it does manage to give every character a reason to doubt each other.
I will also briefly say that the movie is well choreographed as well as being brutally violent.
Now the spoilers need to happen:
The strength of the movie is also it's biggest weakness. The strength of the story structure of a movie like Rashomon is that it casts doubt, not only among the characters, but with the audience. There is doubt cast upon certain land claims and motivations; but, the duel was about the rape. Even the truth according to Jacques depicts him raping her. The only question left for the audience was the extent of the brutality.
Now, the movie makers may argue that by 12th French standards, Jacques was speaking the truth as he saw it when he claimed his innocence; and, they're probably right. But, this isn't even a "Nine 'nos' and one 'yes' means 'yes.'" standard of consent. There was never a "yes" from either perspective. It was rape from every perspective.
With most story structures, that's okay; but, when a movie is being structured through three different perspectives and hinging everything on the question of the truth of one consequential action, structuring the movie that way doesn't make much sense.
There have already been positive reviews of the movie that labelled it as a Medieval epic for the MeToo era; and, that makes sense. Living in a world where people are trying to get To Kill a Mockingbird pulled from curriculum because it depicts a woman lying about being raped tells us that it's a bad career move to make a movie that suggests to mere possibility that Jacques was innocent, even from his own perspective. It just makes for a weaker movie.