Der junge d'Artagnan reist nach Paris, um sich den Musketieren anzuschließen, aber der böse Kardinal hat sie aufgelöst mit Ausnahme von 3. Er trifft die 3, Athos, Porthos und Aramis und begl... Alles lesenDer junge d'Artagnan reist nach Paris, um sich den Musketieren anzuschließen, aber der böse Kardinal hat sie aufgelöst mit Ausnahme von 3. Er trifft die 3, Athos, Porthos und Aramis und begleitet sie bei der Rettung des Königs.Der junge d'Artagnan reist nach Paris, um sich den Musketieren anzuschließen, aber der böse Kardinal hat sie aufgelöst mit Ausnahme von 3. Er trifft die 3, Athos, Porthos und Aramis und begleitet sie bei der Rettung des Königs.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
- Auszeichnungen
- 2 Gewinne & 3 Nominierungen insgesamt
Empfohlene Bewertungen
If memory serves, I'd written this off as a "Prince of Thieves" cash-in at the time (even as a teen, it seemed obvious). But it's an unfair comparison and "The Three Musketeers" is entirely its own thing. This is a spirited, well-mounted adventure with evident chemistry between the lead foursome. Not to mention Tim Curry's undeniable screen presence and Michael Kamen's expert scoring. It's a good story with enough weight but still a sense of fun throughout; and you can primarily thank Oliver Platt for this, because he's clearly having fun. Plus, he's able to hold his own against the bigger names in the cast.
Add in the clanging of rapiers and some wonderfully un-Disney sexuality, Older Me finds this movie a pleasure to watch.
Add in the clanging of rapiers and some wonderfully un-Disney sexuality, Older Me finds this movie a pleasure to watch.
I not only liked this movie, but I feel a need to defend it and the Walt Disney company.
Walt Disney movies are notorious for plot changes. Almost no movie touched by them is safe from this process. From cartoon production to live action films, any adaptation by Disney is going to have plot changes to suit there vision of the final product. For example, their cartoon The Sword in the Stone bears almost no resemblance to the original story of King Arthur.
To say that Disney does not stick to the original plot is like saying an elephant does not ride a bicycle. It is obvious, even before you see it, that this is not going to happen. This is why they are adaptations. The definition of adaptation is "The condition of being made suitable to an end." Disney sets what they want the end product to be and adapt the story line to meet that goal. They did, however, remain close enough to the original story line that one who had not read the original might be intrigued enough to do so.
This movie was made for one reason... to entertain. Sure money was a motive, but if it does not entertain, it does not make money. And, as with most Disney adaptations, if you approach it with the understanding that liberties have been taken, it not only can entertain, but can be downright enjoyable as well. Disney will never fully stick to an original story line for any adaptation they produce. This is how they make it "theirs". This is how they give it that twist that a lot of people have come to expect from a Disney film. And once this IS expected going into the movie, you can watch it in the spirit in which it was released.
And remember this, the cast all had the opportunity to read the script BEFORE they agreed to make the movie. If they had any qualms about the quality of the writing, you can be assured they would not have put their reputations on the line.
Walt Disney movies are notorious for plot changes. Almost no movie touched by them is safe from this process. From cartoon production to live action films, any adaptation by Disney is going to have plot changes to suit there vision of the final product. For example, their cartoon The Sword in the Stone bears almost no resemblance to the original story of King Arthur.
To say that Disney does not stick to the original plot is like saying an elephant does not ride a bicycle. It is obvious, even before you see it, that this is not going to happen. This is why they are adaptations. The definition of adaptation is "The condition of being made suitable to an end." Disney sets what they want the end product to be and adapt the story line to meet that goal. They did, however, remain close enough to the original story line that one who had not read the original might be intrigued enough to do so.
This movie was made for one reason... to entertain. Sure money was a motive, but if it does not entertain, it does not make money. And, as with most Disney adaptations, if you approach it with the understanding that liberties have been taken, it not only can entertain, but can be downright enjoyable as well. Disney will never fully stick to an original story line for any adaptation they produce. This is how they make it "theirs". This is how they give it that twist that a lot of people have come to expect from a Disney film. And once this IS expected going into the movie, you can watch it in the spirit in which it was released.
And remember this, the cast all had the opportunity to read the script BEFORE they agreed to make the movie. If they had any qualms about the quality of the writing, you can be assured they would not have put their reputations on the line.
This film is but a true fun adventure. It's not to be taken absolutely serious. Nor a direct adaption of the classic book. Has quite notable performances by Kiefer Sutherland, Michael Wincott, Rebecca De Mornay, Gabrielle Anwar, and Paul Mcgann. The cinematography as well is noteworthy, two shots that stand out, that i always use in compilations, the shot of them riding across the plains, and when they charge the castle at the end, with an army of musketeers behind them; always takes my breath away. This is a fun movie! Watch for an escape of reality.
Lightheaded and lighthearted this is the definition of escapist entertainment and that is meant as a compliment. Something to watch when you want to relax and not have to think about the plot of the movie.
Chris O'Donnell is impish if a bit callow in the lead but the real show is musketeers anyway and there is where the movie excels. Keifer is suitably brooding as Athos and Charlie Sheen, before he became a surly twitchy mess, is a charming Aramis. The standout however is Oliver Platt going full on ham as Porthos giving a delightfully over the top performance and walking off with the picture whenever he is on screen.
Rebecca De Mornay also seems to be having a good time enacting the villainous Milady de Winter, she's sexy and silky. Lastly there is Tim Curry positively consuming the scenery as Cardinal Richelieu, in his flowing red robes he and Oliver Platt are in a dead heat for biggest scene stealer.
The production is high class with vibrant with color and beautiful settings, true it bears only a passing kinship with the source book but it is a fun time with lots of action and a carefree mood.
Chris O'Donnell is impish if a bit callow in the lead but the real show is musketeers anyway and there is where the movie excels. Keifer is suitably brooding as Athos and Charlie Sheen, before he became a surly twitchy mess, is a charming Aramis. The standout however is Oliver Platt going full on ham as Porthos giving a delightfully over the top performance and walking off with the picture whenever he is on screen.
Rebecca De Mornay also seems to be having a good time enacting the villainous Milady de Winter, she's sexy and silky. Lastly there is Tim Curry positively consuming the scenery as Cardinal Richelieu, in his flowing red robes he and Oliver Platt are in a dead heat for biggest scene stealer.
The production is high class with vibrant with color and beautiful settings, true it bears only a passing kinship with the source book but it is a fun time with lots of action and a carefree mood.
This is a very ordinary version of The Three Musketeers. Film versions of classic novels should at least bear some resemblance to the plot of the novel from which they are adapted, even if they are just pot-boilers intended for a family audience like this one, and not meant to be taken too seriously. But this is a very loose adaptation indeed.
The acting is just up to the level required and the dialogue is a mix of pseudo-17th century and contemporary Americanisms which fail to convince the viewer that he/she is watching a picture set in 17th century France. Though the production is quite a handsome one, with the sets, locations, and costumes all nice to look at, the characters are not well-drawn, in particular those of Cardinal Richlieu, portrayed as an out and out villain, admittedly enjoyably, but with little depth, and D'Artagnan who is played as naive, arrogant and pompous and not as a particularly likable character.
Other comments stress that this is a Disney picture made for the family, but that should not save it from criticism. Compare it with Disney's Treasure Island, or Kidnapped, both much superior adaptations. Nor have they helped children understand the novel. Because it is so loosely based they would hardly recognise it as The Three Musketeers if the characters' names had been changed, though I do agree that film adaptations don't have to follow the source novel absolutely faithfully.
But is it entertaining? Yes and no. The villains are hiss-able, Aramis, Arthos and Porthos are sometimes entertaining, despite the questionable dialogue they are given, and Richlieu, though often over the top, has his moments. The action scenes are OK but not done with any great verve compared with the Richard Lester version. Milady does not feature as a really central character in the plot as she should and in fact many of the novels' characters do not appear in the film at all.
Read the book and see the 1973 version and forget this one if you are over 16.
The acting is just up to the level required and the dialogue is a mix of pseudo-17th century and contemporary Americanisms which fail to convince the viewer that he/she is watching a picture set in 17th century France. Though the production is quite a handsome one, with the sets, locations, and costumes all nice to look at, the characters are not well-drawn, in particular those of Cardinal Richlieu, portrayed as an out and out villain, admittedly enjoyably, but with little depth, and D'Artagnan who is played as naive, arrogant and pompous and not as a particularly likable character.
Other comments stress that this is a Disney picture made for the family, but that should not save it from criticism. Compare it with Disney's Treasure Island, or Kidnapped, both much superior adaptations. Nor have they helped children understand the novel. Because it is so loosely based they would hardly recognise it as The Three Musketeers if the characters' names had been changed, though I do agree that film adaptations don't have to follow the source novel absolutely faithfully.
But is it entertaining? Yes and no. The villains are hiss-able, Aramis, Arthos and Porthos are sometimes entertaining, despite the questionable dialogue they are given, and Richlieu, though often over the top, has his moments. The action scenes are OK but not done with any great verve compared with the Richard Lester version. Milady does not feature as a really central character in the plot as she should and in fact many of the novels' characters do not appear in the film at all.
Read the book and see the 1973 version and forget this one if you are over 16.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesKiefer Sutherland, Chris O'Donnell, and Oliver Platt all endured six weeks of fencing and riding lessons. Charlie Sheen missed out on all of this, as he was then embroiled in the filming of Hot Shots! Der zweite Versuch (1993).
- PatzerAramis is shown quoting Genesis (the first chapter in the Bible) while presumably reading from a Bible, which is open in the middle. Given Aramis' reputation and the subsequent action, it is possible that he was quoting from memory and merely had a book open in front of him to give the impression of piety.
- Alternative VersionenTwo scenes were cut from the German cinema version to secure a "Not under 12" rating (The murder of the prisoner is cut completely (ca. 13 seconds) and the death of the bald headed man in the prison at the end is shortened (ca. 6 seconds).) Second DVD release is uncut ("Not under 16") and bears the note "Uncut version" on the sleeve.
- SoundtracksAll For Love
Performed by Bryan Adams, Rod Stewart, and Sting
Written by Bryan Adams, Mutt Lange (as Robert John "Mutt" Lange), and Michael Kamen
Produced by Chris Thomas, Bryan Adams, and David Nicholas
Bryan Adams and Sting appear courtesy of A&M Records
Rod Stewart appears courtesy of Warner Bros. Records, Inc.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is The Three Musketeers?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Los tres mosqueteros
- Drehorte
- Hofburg, Wien, Österreich(palace interiors, birthday celebration, final fight scenes)
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 30.000.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 53.898.845 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 10.621.992 $
- 14. Nov. 1993
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 53.898.845 $
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 45 Min.(105 min)
- Farbe
- Sound-Mix
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen