Lady Musketier - Alle für eine

This actually isn't that bad. Historically it's complete rubbish, of course (and why is *D'Artagnan* always the one who ends up with a daughter instead of a son? -- see the enjoyable "D'Artagnan's Daughter" of 1994, for example!) and Susie Amy's unfortunate accent grates every time she opens her mouth, but as modern-day swashbucklers go, it was refreshingly free from knowing allusions and would-be updating of the genre. It was just played straight out for the adventure, and all the better for it.

The 'younger generation' - the sons of Athos, Porthos and Aramis - were well-written, acquiring individuality of their own even before we found out who they were supposed to be, and not just clones of their respective fathers. I loved Aramis's offspring as a devout gambler, and Athos' as a cocky womaniser... The Musketeers themselves I thought bore relatively little relation to the characters of the book, with the exception of Michael York's very welcome reprise of his classic role as D'Artagnan. Experience really does show, I'm afraid; he completely acted Susie Amy, for one, off the screen. I'd far rather remember him this way than in the terminally un-funny 'Return of the Musketeers' from 1989 -- a corpse that should have been let lie if ever there was one -- and was extremely appreciative of the opportunity.

I watched the first episode on a whim. I was sufficiently hooked to bother to video-tape the following one when I knew I was going to be out... and bother to watch it immediately I got back, an accolade if ever there was one!

An attractive-looking cast. Good comradeship, avoiding too-obvious romance. Depardieu, playing an Italian-speaking character in a Francophone milieu with a heavy French accent, was out of place, and poor Susie's lower-class London tones were equally inappropriate. Not a classic... but far from the embarrassing mess it could have been.

This is another attempt to capitalize on the Musketeer theme,with some good things in it,but an overall mediocre result at best.

The good things are the bad guy,Villeroi,played by Marcus.j.Pirae,his performance is for a better movie.Also good is Nastassja Kinski as the evil lady Bolton. The European locations,scenic design and costumes are nice.

The bad things are the lead actress Susie Amy who is a very goodlooking girl but terribly wrong for this part.She just doesn't have the necessary "tomboy" personality to be convincing as D'Artagnan's would-be-musketeer daughter. Other major fault is that the swordfighting is shot very close and you cant really see what is going on,which is annoying. Michael York just makes fun of his earlier role and doesn't try to be anything like an aged D'Artagnan. Depardieu doesn't do much and basically just adds his name here.

Overall,its worth a look especially for fans of the genre but nothing more.

the costumes and sets were lavish, the actors were top-notch, but MAN, someone needs to tell that director to get his hands off the reins!

the entire thing was so carefully scripted and orchestrated it approached farce.

also, there were some serious ouchies: she does a flip off something-or-other in the middle of a sword fight and we clearly see her hat flip down to cover her face. of course, when she lands, the hat is perfectly placed and her hair is immaculate. pretty amazing, considering the thing wasn't pinned down and it was pretty big.

little things like that -- i found myself watching in a kind of morbid fascination as it veered from extremely good scenery and gorgeous costumes to unbelievably stupid plotting. example: there's a scene in which she makes a huge fuss over having to wear a dress. she spends the movie running, leaping, and generally doing the Errol Flynn in a musketeer's uniform. so what does she wear to accept her reward from a grateful king?

a massive, gigantic, elaborate, silver ball gown, of course.

Really enjoyed this but especially because of Susie Amy who plays the lead character, she really held her own against some big names, and is beautiful.

It's an all round entertaining film, which I believe was made for TV. I completely disagree with some of the reviews here about the acting, the reviews at Amazon.com where I bought the DVD were really good.

I like this sort of film, it's easy viewing, not difficult to follow, the writing is very simplistic but the characters were throughly entertaining. Surprisingly I thought Gerard was one of the weaker performers compared to his usual standard.

Well worth watching if you enjoy all round light entertainment.

The reason I gave this awful film a 4 instead of a 1 is the wonderful cinematography. This film is beautifully captured in its brilliant colors and wonderful landscapes. Unfortunately, the main character in this is practically unwatchable. The first time you notice that something is wrong is when we get our first closeup of our heroine. For living out in Gascony, France in the late 1600s, why is Valentine wear heavy eye-shadow, cheek blush, and bright lip stick? She does the best she can with the dialog she's given but ohhh, such dialog. Then, in a society that is 200 years away from Women's Suffrage, she expects... DEMANDS... to be treated equally with the men without even proving herself. She even rudely bursts into the Musketeer Commander's office and demands to speak with him. He rightly should have thrown out anyone who tried that except the King. She takes it as an insult that he is not impressed with her. She doesn't try to hide her feminine side at all including having a tailor made, curve hugging Musketeer uniform. This would have worked out better if it was more a "Connecticut Yankee" type where a modern woman is sent back in time but her modern sensibilities are entirely out of place in this film. I'm not sure why a great talent like Michael York agreed to appear in this travesty but I guess a paycheck is a paycheck. If you want to watch a film where a woman takes on a man's world, try Disney's Mulan. The story and acting are much better.