Fromclassicbookstofilm

(2012-05-02 01:47:37)

Definitely not a faithful version but it is a fun one!

This isn't a faithful version in fact it is quite a departure from theDumas novel. I have seen this movie twice once at the theaters and onceonline. I hope there is a sequel to tie up the storyline. Okay,for thepurists like myself this adaptation is not up to par.You will not bepleased! Versions that will please you most and follow the book moreclosely are the U.S 1948 MGM,1954 British BBC series,1959 Frenchversion with Jean Paul Belmondo,1961 French Version with GerardBarray,the 1966 British BBC series remake of the 1954 series,1969series D'Artagnan,The 1971 Spanish TV film and the British 1973-1975Richard Lester's Three and Four Musketeers (which also had sequels),theRussian/Ukrainian D'Artagnan and the Three Musketeers(1978) and thedirect to video 3 hour play The Three Musketeers (1999)and alsorecommended is Milady (2004)miniseries and the French/Italianproduction Milady and the Musketeers (1951)that deals with the secretpast,marriages and execution of Milady doe Winter. The French versionof D'Artagnan and the Three Musketeers (2005) covers the book butdeparts greatly from the original story with Satanism,Human sacrificeand Martial Arts and Milady has a serpent on her shoulder instead of aFleur-doe-lis but Milady is executed by the headsman (or is she? inthis crazy version let the viewer be the judge). Versions that onlyfollow part of the story are the: U.S versions of1935,1939,1950,1960,1993 and 2001. The Italian versions of the 1960'sand 1970's. The Hispanic versions of 1942,1945 and 1957.The French 1953version which was great for a partial filming of the novel.The Dutch2003 Musical.The 1935,1960,1993 and The Dutch 2003 Musical do leave inthe death of Milady doe Winter but not by beheading she commits suicidein those versions. The best silent version of this story was the twopart French 1921 version it followed the book and had great acting,historically accurate costuming,sets and beautiful scenery. Now itsUnited States competition of that year the 1921 Douglas Fairbanks filmwas not as accurate but it had the sets,scenery,great acting andhistorically accurate costumes. The only problem Milady and Rochefortdidn't get there comeuppance for another eight years when the sequelcame out. The 2011 version is in the category of partial filmings ofthe novel with added then some (non-Dumas writing likeairships?,Musketeers stealing to make ends meet,bungee jumpingstripping Milady doe Winter,sword wielding Cardinal Richelieu). Thepluses of this version great historically accurate costumes,greataction,great scenery and some good acting. Characterizations I thoughtOrlando Bloom was a very good Duke of Buckingham a little like SimonWard's portrayal in the Richard Lester's 1970's films. The Musketeerswere well played but not great. Madds Mikkelson's Count doe Rochefortto me was just as good as Michael Wincott's portrayal of Rochefort inDisney's 1993 film but neither can top Christopher Lee's 1973-1975portrayal. Juno Temple's Queen Anne reminded me a lot of GeraldineChaplin's portrayal of the character in the 1973-1975 films of RichardLester in other words-Very Good! King Louis XIII Freddie Fox just asbad as the characterization in the 1993 Disney film. Christolph Walsh'sCardinal Richelieu good performance but not great. Milla Jovovich'sMilady doe Winter. Milla had fun with the role and she put out a lot ofeffort but she definitely is not the Milady doe Winter of the bookespecially in the physical appearance department. Milady doe Winter wasa natural curly haired blonde with blue eyes, beautifulface,statuesque,busty and well built woman. Now Milla Jovovich is aslim very attractive woman. In this 2011 version Milady doe Winter issort of reddish haired or strawberry blonde. She is not the first filmMilady not to have blonde hair the 1921versions,1929,1942,1957,1953,1957,1959 and 2003 Dutch musical attestthe facts. I liked Milla's take on the character and she was abutt-kicking Milady doe Winter as her co-star Logan Lerman describedher. Now for Logan Lerman's portrayal of D'Artagnan. He in my opiniondid a better job than Chris O'Donnell in Disney's 1993 version andbetter than Dana Young in the 1999 direct to video play. What he has incommon with the D'Artagnan in the book and with Chris and Dana werethat they were closer in age to the D'Artagnan in the book. Youth theyhave but acting ability and physical resemblance to the character inthe book they do not have! All in all I enjoyed this movie but not in aliterary sense and I would watch it again and I hope they do a FourMusketeers to wrap the story up.

robert parker

(2012-05-01 09:56:15)

loved it

went expecting little , but it rattled along no dull moments or pausesthe interiors and costumes stunning. Orlando Bloom needs a medal forbeing able to wear outrageous costumes with such panache. the air shipcrash on notre dame show stopping , the final sequence a knockout. morefun than the last pirates, the cast looked fresh seemed to be enjoyingthemselves- loved this take on the three musketeers, hope there's asequel Buckingham's revenge perhaps. this never set out to please thecritics, 'im sick of Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan being shoved atus. we go the movies to be taken out of ourselves in troubled times andthis does it . for once the colour is strong and vibrant for a change,a feast for the eyes if not the intellect, but who cares sit back andenjoy.

jason-michael-rowe

(2012-05-01 09:26:41)

Terrible re-make

This film was so bad it made me want to cry. After watching for justover an hour I switched off. The main sticking point for me here is theway they seemed to be trying very hard at trying to make it seemsomehow different to the 73 version, or the '90s version. However itwas as though they took the script, cut it up, removed bits and pieces,jumbled the rest up and then threw it back together again. What we'releft with is a film that made little or no sense, minus any slapstickhumour, or intrigue. It is all very pretty....the costumes are lovelyand the CGI is barely passable, all the actors are quite pretty too.Doesn't really matter if they can act. The feel of the film is far tooclean for me. The props, costumes, scenery all look out of place. Theflying ship, the underwater breathing apparatus, and the hi=techlooking security system protecting the diamonds were just completelybaffling. I won't even go into how bad Orlando Bloom is. And whoevercast James Corden in this film needs shooting.Just stick to the 73 version, which is my favourite by far.

Steve Stephenson

(2012-04-30 09:52:04)

A very enjoyable action-adventure movie

I enjoyed watching The Three Musketeers. A lot. I was not expectinganything that would leave me praising it for years like Avatar or KingKong did, but the movie was very pleasing to watch. There is action,humour, surprises, a fairly interesting plot, friendship, romance andother values that are important in life. Some of the scenes may beunrealistic, but of course nobody can expect a movie like this toportray realistic events. This is an enjoyable adventure with someedge-of-the-seat action. One of the top reviews on here states that thedialogue and characters are poor. Utter nonsense. There is nothingwrong with either. Character development is nice and smooth and makesyou engage with the characters. Sound and graphic effects arebrilliant.Overall this was very enjoyable and I would recommend it to anyonewishing to watch a nice action-adventure flick.

jjfmaguire

(2012-04-30 06:53:42)

12A for a kids film is not a good idea

I took my 8 year old boy to see the movie in 3D. For those who wouldbelieve that 3D is simply a gimmick to cover up weak scripting andacting then this would be a good example to use. There are good points- the visuals - and these would include the 3D aspect - are very goodindeed. Vivid colours and sets (a bit heavily computer animated) makeParis, London and Venice look fantastic. I think the aim of the filmmakers was to end up with a Pirates of the Caribbean rival and theyclearly hoped to set up a franchise. If they had made some kind ofdecision regarding the pitching of the movie they might have managedthis. Make no mistake - this is a movie for kids. My 8 year old boythought it was pretty good - the adults present thought it was prettyawful. So tone down the violence and romance a little and you wouldhave had a perfectly acceptable movie for children. Unfortunately thisone falls in between the two. Overall - a decent idea badly executed.Stick to the 1973 original if you want to see the novel done justice -or decent acting - or if you are over 10 years old.

walter2-1

(2012-04-29 14:42:52)

Another worthwhile-content-free remake

Yes, there are people in this movie that are identified as musketeers,and we get 3 of them by name. However, that is as close to Dumas' TheThree Musketeers as this movie ever comes. This movie has been mademany times which is a testament to the exceptionally good story andengaging characters. Sadly, these elements are completely missing fromthis version. The 1993 film is SO much better it's outrightembarrassing, and not just because every actor is so good in it. It wasbrilliantly told, well cast and wonderfully acted. No danger whatsoeverof that in this version.This version has only the high fantasy church-top aerial fencing sceneto commend it, otherwise, every single critical story line element ismissing. We have zero character development, some fantasyballoon-frigate warfare (maybe they thought Jules Verne wrote theoriginal), and a confused story line that simply makes no sense. 3D?Totally useless, and as expected, did not make up for the otherfailings. I now regard 3D as a stark warning: "we failed utterly withthe writing, so we decided to mindlessly pimp the visuals, watch out"It's depressing enough that Hollywood keeps plundering old movies andstories for "new" releases, but then the witless committee of bad tastegets into the action, and determined to appeal to some non-existentdemographic, destroys and defaces the final result. I'm sure if theycould have somehow gotten a topless car chase into the film, they wouldhave.Why even a five? good question, but to be fair, I did enjoy some of thevisuals, and the costumes were great, I just hated the movie as astory, and never, ever want to see it again.

michael-dixon22

(2012-04-29 00:16:02)

A reasonable way of passing the time

If this film was meant as a bit of fun for just under two hours thenfine. After wearing my serious historical hat in vain for about 30minutes, I then settled down with this in mind. Trouble is no-one inthe very small audience even raised the quietest chuckle, so maybe theywere expecting something different all the way through?It is impossible to really analyse the acting skills too much becauseof the style of the film. That said I liked the portrayal of Louis,King of France, again for the laugh, while Orlando Bloom must havewatched countless Leslie Phillips films to perfect such a sound-a-likevoice. And he was playing the Duke of Buckingham.I thought the actress who played Milady was effective, but D'Artagnanwith his American accent and who was towered over by most of theothers, was very wooden. So too the beautiful blonde lady servant tothe Queen, whom he was casting eyes at for most of the film. To be fairshe was given little to say. Their chemistry did not exist. Poorcasting or poor acting or maybe both? As for the Three Musketeersthemselves well they did what they had to do with various degrees ofenthusiasm and at times who could blame them. Their rapport, shown atthe beginning of the film, soon evaporated when D'Artagnan arrived onthe scene and four was certainly a crowd here.The fighting scenes throughout were a cross between those true to thefencing, Jackie Chan and the Spanish Armada in the sky.Go to the cinema the day when the prices are lowest, don't expect toomuch and just treat it as a reasonable way of spending some spare time.

Neil Welch

(2012-04-28 20:15:49)

Big daft fun

Young D'Artagnan leaves his home in the country to go and join thefabled Musketeers in Paris. They, meanwhile, have been double-crossedby Milady deWinter who is working, variously, and unpredictably, forthem (their allegiance is to the King), the villainous English Duke ofBuckingham, and the equally villainous Cardinal Richlieu, who isengaged in both domestic and international plotting. On the way toParis, D'Artagnan falls foul of Rochefort, the head of Richlieu'spersonal militia. The Musketeers get involved in a plot which involvesa piece of jewellery which plays a key part in King Louis' plan(undertaken on the advice of yokel D'Artagnan) to romance his wife, whohe is too shy to do more than acknowledge in the corridor under normalcircumstances. Meanwhile, Buckingham arrives in a galleon suspendedbelow a balloon, and Milady deWinter does bungee jumps off the palaceroof in between slo-mo sliding underneath barrages of fire, and divingthrough a network of laser beams, sorry, invisible razor sharp wires(well, laser beams would have made as much sense).This film provides a clear explanation why the forthcoming Lone Rangermovie is going to have werewolves in it - it takes Dumas' novel as itsstarting point, and then goes off in its own wildly improbabledirection, working in tried and trusted elements from MissionImpossible and The Matrix in particular. This is as much The ThreeMusketeers as Kiss Me Kate is The Taming Of The Shrew.For all that, and notwithstanding how chaotic my plot synopsis makes itsound, it is rather good fun. Don't expect Dumas (or else you will besadly disappointed), put your brain on "hold", get a big tub ofpopcorn, and enjoy the romping.Logan Lerman as D'Artagnan, while amiable, does well in theswordfighting but lacks the charisma necessary to carry such a bigpart: he was better in Percy Jackson And The Lightning Thief. The otherMusketeers are rather under-characterised and under-used. Conversely,the villains - Christoph Waltz as Richlieu, Mads Mikkelsen asRochefort, and Orlando Bloom as Buckingham - are fine. But this isn'treally about the characters, or the acting, or even the plot - it'sabout the action and the visuals, and they are always pleasing (and forthose who want to watch a Musketeers film because of the swordplay,there is plenty of it).The story is fine, the script is a bit of a disappointment. There aretimes when you get a flavour of the sparkle the dialogue could havehad, but mostly it doesn't. And, because of that, the film misses outon an element which could have raised it from forgettable spectacle tosomething memorable. Perhaps that will be remedied in the sequel whichis clearly hoped for, as per the final scene.The 3D, by the way, is very good.

cymonerry

(2012-04-27 22:31:25)

The tradition continues with a twist - spoiler

Here it is again, The Three Musketeers.So what's new? Nothing except the ridiculous use of cgi to create animpossible act of physics. Flying English warships, bullshit. I foundthis part of the movie unnecessary.Having got that out of the way I love Mila Jovovitch since The FifthElement. Her hatred of the English in The Messenger Joan of Arc makesher ideal for the part. Roy Kinnear died making one of these Musketeer movies, he was a gem. Ithink he would like this movie it has all the stuff they did in the 70swith the likes of Oliver Reed, Faye Dunaway and Charlton Heston. Iloved those films and this one is also lots of fun. Check out theoriginals before or after seeing this. They are truly classics.All said, a great performance by all, just a bit annoyed by theoverstatement of English Naval power for that time. Airships? We hardlyhad a Navy during this period. We would soon be entangled in civil war,plague and fire all involving the French before being whipped by theDutch. This is Pure French propaganda translated to English, butsurprisingly embraced by the English soon after its publication.In homage this is definitely Hollywood doing its version, in that theyoverdid it with their flying rubbish that would never get off theground. The ship has an enormous wooden double steering wheel. Airshipsneed to be light. But It is definitely worth the watch if you considerit your average violent kids film with comic values. I Think Hollywoodconfused this classic with The Pirates of the Caribbean and could notresist adding their "magic" puke!The tradition continues, only slightly perverted by Hollywood.

Naurya

(2012-04-27 13:15:13)

Good entertainment, but would have been better without anachronisms

Before I start writing down my impressions of this movie, I have to saythat "The Three Musketeers" is one of my all-time favourite books. WhenI heard that a new Three Musketeers film was going to be released, Iwas really excited - all the more when I saw pictures of the beautifullocations in Bavaria and read that Christoph Waltz ("IngloriousBasterds") would play my favourite character Richelieu. When I saw thetrailer though, I was shocked: Matrix style bullet evasion? A Ninjadiver? And... zeppelin air ships? WTF? I was sure Dumas was rotating inhis grave over this mutilation done to his work! Really... I don'tthink a brilliant story like The Three Musketeers needs air ships inorder to be exciting.Despite my frustration about the trailer, I decided to go to the cinemaand I have to say, it was certainly not a total waste of time andmoney. First of all, the costumes and locations were extremelyenjoyable. I watched the movie in 2D, but viewers will surelyappreciate the 3D version. There are some nice effects like a bird'sview onto a painted map of France.Most of the actors also did a great job, especially Christoph Waltz. Hewas amazing, just like I had always imagined Richelieu: this coolcomposure he has when something is not going according to his plans,but you can see how his brilliant brain is working on something newalready. I also liked his interaction with the Louis XIII. The King wasportrayed in a very exaggerated manner (clueless about politics, onlyinterested in fashion and very childish), but this ironic exaggerationof his character created a lot of fun. Orlando Bloom was also great asBuckingham. You could see how he was enjoying himself in the role ofthe classy, spoiled and evil British ambassador. Logan Lerman asd'Artagnan surprised me positively. I thought he was just anotherboyish actor teenage girls will fall in love with. But he made a reallygood d'Artagnan and was able to show off his fencing abilities.Apparently all the fencing choreographies were done without the help ofropes or stuntmen - Respect! The final duel between Rochefort andd'Artagnan on the roof of Notre Dame was epic. It's a pity there wasn'tmore sword fighting instead of zeppelins. The actors of Athos, Porthosand Aramis also did a pretty good job, but had too little screen timeand thus ended up as flat characters with only one trait of charactereach (Athos = the disillusioned drunkard, who has lost his love,Porthos = the vain daredevil, Aramis = the religious ladies' man). Themusketeers as the title heroes really should be at the centre of theplot, but in this movie Milady and Buckingham got much more attention.Too much attention in the case of Milady. First of all, Milla Jovovichis not a good actress. Neither is she especially sexy, as the movieconstantly tries to suggest. But I guess these factors don't play muchof a role if you are married to the director... Secondly, I've alwayshated all these historical novels or films where "emancipated" women dostuff they just wouldn't have done in the century the plot is set in.And no, I'm pretty sure a woman of the 17th century would not havestripped on the roof of the palace and bungee jumped down. And no, shewould not be able to win a sword fight against several Cardinal'sGuards. And no group of three 17th century soldiers would have alloweda woman (in a huge gown not made for running) to draw the gunfire ontoherself, so that they can go safe after she has activated the trap…There were more anachronisms like that, the most obvious one being theair ships, but I won't even start ranting about them. The second mostannoying anachronism was the portrayal of Rochefort: At the beginning,d'Artagnan challenges him to a duel, but Rochefort just shoots himbefore he can draw his sword. Outrageous for a 17th century nobleman!If there is one important ingredient you mustn't forget in acloak-and-sword-film, it's the code of honour: you fight your enemy,but you're always noble and fair. The movie almost completely lackedthis element. Also, why the heck does a Musketeer movie need a "MissionImpossible" scene with Milady climbing though a network of invisiblewires? And why can d'Artagnan, after just one audience, stroll throughthe palace gardens with the King? Why does Buckingham accuse the Kingof wearing "retro style"? – Even the soundtrack was anachronisticsometimes, when it suddenly changed from classical Hans-Zimmer-style toPulp-Fiction-style – very irritating!But the anachronisms are not the only logical flaws in the movie: Howdid the French build an air ship in one week? (How do they fly and howare they steered anyway?) Why would a royal ship use a skeleton as afigurehead? (Answer: so that you get the Pirates of the Caribbeanstyle) Why do the musketeers first try to get into the tower vault inorder to get the diamonds, but then Athos suddenly knows that thediamonds won't be there anyway, but with Milady? How does Miladysurvive a fall of like 100 metres?Well, perhaps you should just switch off the logical part of yourbrain, when you go to see this movie! All in all, I had great funwatching it together with some friends. In the end it was better than Ifeared after seeing the trailers, but the sad thing is: it was worsethan it could have been! All the ingredients for a great historicalmovie were there: excellent actors, beautiful locations and one of thebest novels ever written as the basis! However, they just messed aroundtoo much with that great novel. You just can't improve a perfect story(not even with air ships), you can only make it worse.

Ahmed Dawod

(2012-04-27 00:27:58)

Very Good Version of the Movie

Although there are people who don't like the remaking of old movies, Iprefer it very much on one condition (The new version must be better ofall the old versions). The point of remake is to use the new technologyin Film Making to produce the same story with a new look. And I seethat this is what happened in this movie. This version contains a newincidents but in the same story line. I mean if you read the actualstory which all "The Three Musketeers" movies are based on, you willfind it as: "Three brave professional musketeers who dedicated theirskills for France, they meet a new apprentice who dreams to be one ofthem. They take care of him and he goes in troubles with them when theydiscover a conspiracy against the king." This is the general story, allthe movies are based on this but in different scenarios. So, I see no fault in this one, it is really amazing and deserves 9/10And from the end of the movie, I think there will be (and for the firsttime) another part of the three musketeers. Anyway, I strongly recommend this one if you want a good action andadventure movie.

Jered Markoff

(2012-04-26 16:26:27)

Really?

I actually expected this movie to be bad based on the previews, andafter the first 5 minutes, which were kind of entertaining, I thought"maybe this won't be so bad". But every attempt at humor is completelydry, and the story is told in the worst way possible. Aside from theopening scene, everything added to the story in an attempt to make itdifferent from the standard Three Musketeer plot is completely lame.And even Orlando Bloom acted like a rookie! I don't know how on earththis managed to get financed. If you want some real entertainment,watch the 1993 version, in which Tim Curry is the best evil Cardinalever!

DICK STEEL

(2012-04-24 19:07:35)

A Nutshell Review: The Three Musketeers

There are more than 20 films made on Alexandre Dumas' The ThreeMusketeers novel, so the challenge here for any filmmaker seeking tomake a film adaptation is to come up with something new, but yetstaying true to the spirit of what the One For All and All For Oneepitomizes. Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, the man responsible for anumber of Resident Evil films and other remakes such as Death Race,it's quite obvious he'll film this in 3D given that he took theResident Evil franchise in that direction with a steampunkish look andfeel, but little else.The Three Musketeers tells the story of four musketeers, with a certainD'Artagnan (Logan Lerman of Percy Jackson fame) looking to join theFrench King's elite force only to find that they've been disbanded bythe evil Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) who has the diabolicalplan of getting England and France to go to war, and stepping in tousurp the throne. D'Aartagnan soon makes an enemy out of CaptainRochefort (Mads Mikkelsen) and bumping into the trio of Athos (MatthewMacfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans), thetitular musketeers now into semi-retirement, and soon find themselvesbanding together once again to answer the call of saving the king LouisXIII (Freddie Fox) and his queen Anne (Juno Temple).That's the gist of the usual tale, where in Paul W.S. Anderson's casehad envisioned the musketeers to be sort of an early rendition ofsecret agents out to do the country's bidding, with a license to kill.The opening character introductory sequence brings us to Venice, Italy,where the trio, together with Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich) embarkon a secret quest to retrieve construction plans of an airship, onlyfor the lady to betray them all, and working as a double agent underRichelieu, and the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). The screenplayby Alex Litvak and Andrew Davies broadly follows certain key elementsfrom Dumas' original story, such as the involvement of the Queen's ladyin waiting (Gabriella Wilde), the plot to kick-start a war and the manypolitical double-crossing, but took a lot of liberties pertaining tohow events unfolded that it is The Three Musketeers in name only, andcould have been entitled The Adventures of Milady de Winter for thepivotal role the character plays throughout the film, and having justabout the coolest of all fight scenes. Oh yes I forgot Milla is MrsAnderson.Much has been said about the mixed accents spoken through the film, andit's true, if one's a stickler for accent authenticity, one will notfind that in this movie, where everyone just about speaks in their ownnatural accented English. Everyone practically hammed up their roles,with Orlando Bloom turning in a really flamboyant performance as thevillainous Duke complete with metrosexual tendencies, while ChristophWaltz, the current Hollywood It guy to play chief villains in films,slept walk his way in his role - you can tell he's already tired fromit all - complete with a very bad hairdo. Worst, the heroes aren't thatheroic and lacked certain believable charisma given that they aresupposed to be One for All, being at times too smart even forthemselves, and got overshadowed fairly quickly by the more illustriouscast standing on the side of evil.Since it's a Paul W.S. Anderson film, expect the usual slow-motiontechnique being overused in just about every major set action brawl,with green screen environments being obviously used to craft and designunbelievably complex fights that almost always try to be very cool andstylish. It does take the mickey out of a good old straightforwardswordfight, especially since guns are the de facto weapon of choiceinstead. When the battle airships got introduced, you know this is notyour father's The Three Musketeers, but very much something that couldhave existed in a parallel universe instead. I wonder if AlexandreDumas himself would be entertained by this updated version, that becamea lot more comedic in nature as the minutes ticked by, or turned in hisgrave at the monstrosity this was.It's good that this 3D version was shot in that format and not playingthe cheat sheet by having it done in post production, with some momentsobviously exploiting that format and you'll have a number of swordspointing your way more than once. Otherwise it's the usual depth offield you'll get to enjoy, but alas this version is far from being thedefinitive The Three Musketeers that you've read about, but a verybland action adventure that uses its name and premise only, but lackedany depth to truly live up to the themes it stood for, paying lipservice only about camaraderie and love. The open finale isunsatisfying as it leads directly into a potential sequel that will seesome difficulties in becoming reality given that this one didn't lightup the box office.

ayante_hdc

(2012-04-24 16:22:32)

My god...

Friend of mine invites me to a free preview. Half an hour after themovie started I said to myself "thanks I didn't pay for this". I don'tlike to say "never" but I have to make a big effort to remember anyfilm as bad as this. Those "Matrix/Ocean Twelve/Mission Impossible"scenes totally out of context, out of time and out of everything mademe feel embarrassed. When I saw the shipping flying, well, that was toomuch.It's a pity because they were good actors, specially Christoph Waltzand Mads Mikkelsen. Mila Jovovich it's a beauty, but her acting skillsare not on the top, specially working along with Waltz.This movie should be done with more cheap actors and having youngerpeople as target.

collipal-1

(2012-04-22 15:06:46)

Insipid and tedious

Among the books I obsessively read during my childhood, I can mentionRobin Hood, Tom Sawyer, Journey to the Center of the Earth and TheThree Musketeers. Of them, I think the last one is the one which mostluck has had in its film adaptations, from the pure acrobatic pleasureof Gene Kelly (1912-1996) as D'Artagnan in 1948, to the entertainingversion made by Disney in 1993. However, the new film The ThreeMusketeers (2011) tried to add something totally new to the recipe,because it re-interprets the venerable novel as a "steampunk" adventurefull of retro technology, martial arts and stunts in slow-motion. Iknow it sounds ridiculous, but it could have produced a goodresult...if the film had told an interesting story as an endorsement ofits over-designed visual style.This revisionist interpretation of The Three Musketeers probably costmore than all the previous movies together, and it is easy to note thebig effort from the designers, builders and special effects techniciansto reach an opulent visual style. Unfortunately, all that effort waswasted in a movie with a tedious and incredibly lazy screenplay,horrible dialogs and bad direction. The Three Musketeers does not workeven as an "involuntary comedy", because the screenplay bores due tothe maddening slowness from its repetitive scenes, many of them builtwith recycled pieces we have seen in better movies.My general description of The Three Musketeers (2011) would be thefollowing: a tedious film with insipid drama occasionally interruptedby badly filmed action scenes. And what is more, Matthew Macfayden, RayStevenson and Luke Evans bring listless performances as the musketeers,and they do not have any chemistry with each other, so as aconsequence, it was impossible for me to find the intense friendshipbetween their characters credible. In conclusion, this film is afiasco, so do not waste your time nor your money with it.

Joe Franke

(2012-04-22 01:36:14)

Aims High - Reaches about the middle - Well above the bottom (possible spoilers)

First off, I love Dumas' story of The Three Musketeers. I have seenevery version I could lay my hands on - which includes DouglasFairbanks's, Gene Kelly's, Richartd Chamberlain's, Chris O'Donnell /Kiefer Sutherland, The BBC miniseries with Jeremy Brett and severalothers. I have never found an 'ideal' version. By ideal, I don't mean aword-for-word adaptation of the book(s). I just want a movie that getsthe characters right. Let the modern adventures take them where theywill.So it was with some excitement that I heard that Andrew Davies (of BBCPride and Prejudice fame) was hired to write the screenplay. A drama ofthe highest level seemed to be in the making. Then I heard that PaulAnderson was brought in to direct, as was Alex Litvak to 'liven up' thescript. At first I was disappointed, thinking, 'Great, here goesanother classic adaptation down the drain." But, then, I relaxed. Itwasn't going to be the dramatic movie that I had hoped for, but itmight be more fun.And fun The Three Musketeers certainly is. First, the high points. Thepace is snappy, the action is scintilating, the costumes are dazzling(Cardinal's Guard's uniforms were especially good), and the colors arevividly brilliant. The special effects are superb. In short, itcertainly LOOKS like a big-budget blockbuster. The acting was good-to-middling. The good: Ray Stevenson as Porthos. Iwish he had been given more screentime. His Porthos is tall, strong, and a little reckless, withsquinty-eyed, devil-may-care grin. Matthew Macfayden as Athos. I'veseen him before in other films (Pride and Prejudice 2005, Robin Hood,and Little Dorrit) so I knew he would bring some gravity to the role.He certainly did but again I wished for more screen time. He wasprobably the most developed if the three. And, of course, MadsMikkelsen as Rochefort. Mikkelsen strikes just the right note ofmenace. The surprising: (good) Milla Jovovich as Milady. Most people think ofResident Evil, but she can act convincingly (watch The Fourth Kind),and puts in an excellent turn here as milady. (bad) Luke Evans asAramis. He came off as pale and, with the exception of one importantdialogue, uninteresting. (bad) Christoph Waltz as Richelieu. It was nota bad performance (Waltz is capable of great performances - see Waterfor Elephants), but in a movie that relies so much on depiction ofcharacter, the role asked Richelieu to emanate power. Waltz tries hisbest, but is ultimately trapped in a role that offers little dramaticcontrast. (good) Freddie Fox as King Louis XIII. The King plays alarger role in this film than in previous adaptations, and Fox makeswhat could be a weak, watery character quite sympathetic. The indifferent: (indifferent) Orlando Bloom as Buckingham. Nothingreally stood out in Bloom's portrayal. There are other actors who couldhave done just as well. Bloom was simply a box-office attraction.(indifferent) Logan Leman as D'Artagnan. Cocky enough to shatter thescreen, but his American accent seemed out of place in a largelyBritish cast film. (indifferent) Gabriella Wilde as Constance. Mz.Wilde is very pretty, and very convincing, but her Constance came offas snippy and nasty.Now for what many 'purists' are wailing about, and the source of muchtrashing - the plot. For there is one, but it is not overlycomplicated. This movie covers basically the same territory as thefirst half of the book - the story of the Queen's diamonds. Not to blowanything, but (SPOILERS!!) the movie ends right as Buckingham issetting sail for France - presumably to set siege to La Rochelle. So,there are the standard fights with the Cardinal's Guards, the theft ofjewels, a plot by the Cardinal, and the Musketeers pressed into serviceto save the Queen. All pretty entertaining, and well done IMO, withthis one draw-back that sticks with me every time I've watched thisfilm: despite so much traveling, there is very little sense of thedistance covered. The trip to Calais is accomplished by simply changingscenes; the journey from Calais to England, almost ditto. Clearly,Litvak and Anderson felt that the drama of the trip to Calais could bedispensed with (the trip is a major part of most adaptations). While Iappreciate the desire to be different, I felt a little cheated here.Perhaps Anderson thought that another action sequence would unbalancethe film. Given the amount of other action sequences (all excellentlyscripted), he was probably right.I know what you're thinking: BUT AIRSHIPS??!! Well, sure, why not!Dumas had a great sense of the fantastic (read the unedited MonteCristo). Saying he would have approved or not is beside the point; theinclusion of a fantastical element is very much in the Dumas spirit.Credit to Anderson and Litvak for not just including the airships to becool (though that was obviously a primary reason), but making themimportant to the story. In addition to the above, there is very littleblood or sex. If you like your Musketeers raw and uncensored, you willbe disappointed. Anderson did a fine job directing, and Paul Haslingergot into his best Hans Zimmer imitation with the soundtrack (mixingbits of Pirates of the Caribbean with shades of Sherlock Holmes). If you're a book purist, don't even bother with this one. Just hug yourRichard Chamberlain versions tight, and hope for Blu-ray. If you like good action with crazy sword-fights, some funny dialogueand aren't worried by things like 'drama' and 'character' and just wantto have a good time, this new set of Musketeers delivers in spades. Andit is set up for a sequel, so there is probably more to come - love itor hate it.

Nikitastik

(2012-04-14 17:02:26)

All in good fun

While I wholeheartedly agree with everyone who complains that thisadaptation bears almost no resemblance to Dumas' classic, I must alsorespectfully disagree about the complaints of it being an utter wasteof time. I am a die-hard Musketeers fan. Read the book, fell in love, watchednearly every movie adaptation, still in love. That being said, I hold no illusions on the fact that this movie wasNOT meant to resemble the original novel further than names and basicplot. They were going for something different here. They wanted afranchise like The Pirates movies, for one. They also, frankly, wantedto make money. I'm sorry, but most younger people (not all) would beyawning themselves silly if they were to watch an exact adaptation ofthe novel. A few people would be pleased, but i am telling you that,although this didn't do very well in the box office, a more accurateversion would have done infinitely worse. I think they have something excellent here. It's fun, it's quirky, ithas the classic plot line but with a slew of fresh outlooks and twiststhat definitely set it apart from all of the other versions out there.I love the sci fi outlook and the steam-punk filming. It may not beperiod correct, but really how many things are now days? And really,who cares? Its fun, its interesting. Go with it. It wasn't meant to bea historical movie they show in history classes. It's meant forentertainment value only. Orlando Bloom really shined in this movie! He played a quirky, fun,masterful enemy and I think if they continue in the direction they areheaded he will make a fabulous villain. I've never been a fan of him,but my outlook is changed. Logan Lerman was fantastic as well. I was worried when I saw himcasted, but he was really great and added depth to his character. My complaints (believe it or not): Milady. Really, her whole characteralmost. She was a little too much for me in this. I think she just gotway too much screen time and altogether detracted from the characterdevelopment of the Musketeers themselves. The king. The poor guy.. I can't stand how petulant he is in thismovie. It made me almost start rooting for the bad guys, because reallythe cardinal would make a better ruler than this childish, air-headedkid. He was way overdone I think. The Musketeers. I loved who they chose and they would have reallyshined had they been given the screen time to so. Alas, Milady and theother bad guys stole all of the screen time which could have been usedto develop these amazing, noble men. Don't get me wrong, I love a good villain as much as the next girl, butit was hard to put depth in the words "all for one and one for all"when the script made the villains more interesting than the heroes. Theresult was some very one dimensional characters. That was the worstpart for me because Athos, Porthos, and Aramis ARE the ThreeMusketeers. They needed a bit more love, I think. All in all, I loved it and hope they do continue to make the movies.

fayazissak

(2012-04-13 21:22:54)

Utter trash

I found this movie to be complete and utter trash, the CGI was obvious,especially in fight scenes, the story was ludicrous, the movie itselfwas long and dull. Why does Hollywood think that they can continuallyre- invent this particular story is beyond me. Its a shame because it looked half decent from the trailer, and hassome great actors in the movie too. The Three Musketeers is a movie that you will easily forget, it willleave no long standing impression in your mind. I would love to see aversion that has a decent script and stuck more closely to the originaltext.If you are looking to pass a couple of hours and don't care what youwatch, go for it, otherwise I would advise you to spend your time morewisely!

DarkVulcan29

(2012-04-12 12:56:10)

It's just a fun time, it never tries to be anything else.

This movie is getting bashed by so many critics, but I think thisversion was meant to be up there with Indiana Jones, just a funadventure movie that never takes itself too seriously. It had somegreat action scenes, and some great sword fighting also.Our main leads, Athos(Mathew Macfadyen), Aramis(Luke Evans),Porthos(Ray Stevenson), and D'Artagnan(Logan Lerman) are all good, andhave incredible chemistry. Mila Jovavich is also good too, and thatResident Evil training paid off. Cristoph Waltz is great, when is henever great. But I felt that Orlando Blooms character could have beenflushed out better. But non the less still a fun time at the movies.

Dylan Keyne

(2012-04-12 00:07:35)

Tired re-re-rehashing of past films.

The Three Musketeers... a perennial favourite like Robin Hood, itseems. Do we really NEED this many movies about the same origin storyof how D'Artagnan joins the Muskies?No matter how many things you try and add, the basic story is still thesame and it's down to whoever's interpretation people prefer. I have tosay that the plot of The Man In The Iron Mask was at least unique. Thisis just yet another tired old retelling of the same old basic tale, butwithout even full character development. Someone in Hollywood had somemoney to spend. That was the whole driver for this project. The acting was fine, but never really notable. These are all goodactors, we know, but they seemed like they had almost nothing to workwith and simply could not escape their contract. Macfadyen wasespecially dull - I could accept that as his normal characterbehaviour, but he was like that in every single scene. Is Athos reallythat dead inside that the most heartwrenching sorrows and gutwrenchingaction cannot even stir as much as a raised eyebrow?I'm as much a fan as anyone of movies where you *can* switch your mindoff if you so choose, but this is one where you have to - 3-Dbandwaggons and flying ships galore, supported by silly gimmick jokes,notable actors (who I guess only did the film for some pocket money),great set pieces, mediocre props and the usual tired old themes anddialogue all make for one spectacularly anti-climactic film. Take all those cool elements of previous Musketeer films, combine themand add some bits seen in other films - The end product is this 2011version. Nothing special, nothing new and nothing more of note thanOrlando Bloom's rockabilly haircut. To use a cooking analogy - The film follows an obvious and well-usedrecipe, yet fails to supply the right ingredients in the rightmeasures, bakes at the wrong temperature for the wrong time, fails torise and then burns to a crisp, before the chef gives up completely andgets a take-out from Billy's Bad Burger Joint down the local back alleyinstead...