Die drei Musketiere

Went to see this movie, only because I have seen the numerous previous ones. I wasn't expecting much and got exactly what I expected... The makers have totally disregarded the fact this story is set at a "time and history" and have gone high tech including ridiculous CG affects. We have flying machines machines, multi-firing cannons, and all with explosions that are totally unbelievable for the "period in history" the story is set in... Other than that, the acting is elementary.

Have an hankering for The Three Musketeers, rent the 1993 version - It abuses the story enough and is watchable!

Skip this one!

At first glance, we all know that this will never be a great version of The Three Musketeers but with all the flying ships and the swashbucklery, we can still give it a try. The film ends up pretty fun. Even with all the silly nonsense and the modern stuff scattered in the film. The cast made it enjoyable. The 3D is surprisingly good. But in the end, it's just another blockbuster. The film also had troubles to its pacing and the writing is a bit modern. The Three Musketeers won't end up as a classic but it can be fun in some times.

The baffle goes to the director. Paul W.S. Anderson is an unusual person to direct a film like this since he's more of a futuristic action movie guy. Adding some steampunk and plenty of slow-mos. The film didn't end up being too faithful to the original story. The director just wants to feel comfortable to his style. Modernism, Cool Devices, Hot Women, and Slow-Mo. The pacing is problematic in the second act. It shows the plan of the villains and in parts, you won't notice that it already passes another day.

The other thing about the second act, the Musketeers are mostly absent. It shows more of the antagonists and their plans. It's like Transformers where the titular characters only appear when there's danger and mostly focuses to a kid and the villains. But here, the titular characters are not bland.

Some of the cast made their scenes enjoyable. Logan Lerman does his thing. Not quite appreciating though. But his female fans will love it. The actors who played the three musketeers gives plenty of personality to their roles. Matthew Macfadyen is pretty cool as Athos. We don't get to see much Luke Evans but he is cunning as Aramis. Ray Stevenson is as usual, funny and had much character. In the antagonists, Christophe Waltz has many style of being a villain. Orlando Bloom looks like he's enjoying but a little threat in his little scenes. Mads Mikkelsen is the only serious villain among them. Milla Jovovich does her swagger and seductiveness but a little personality.

The action is pretty cool. But so much slow-mos. Just like in Resident Evil Afterlife. Slow-motion to make it cool. Anderson started these excessive slow-mos in Resident Evil 4. Maybe he thought these things will affect the 3D or maybe he just wanted to be cool. It's cool enough but when the musketeers was helping D'Artagnan to fight Rochefort's army, there is one moment of this scene that looks too similar to 300. When Athos was slashing them but here there are no blood. No matter how violent they kill, you won't see a single drop. The 3D is surprisingly good. It's almost like a gimmick but this gimmick is actually good. Swords, Bombs, Pointy Objects, and other stuff.

The production design is decent. The costumes and the setting are well made. The CGI were obviously good. The flying battleships and some CGI swords. CGI bombs. CGI background. The music score fits the whole theme but every single score repeats in every scene. The writing isn't good. Too modern. They said the S word but it's funny anyways.

Fans of the original story will definitely be disappointed with this adaptation but if you are in for some steampunk, slow-mos, swashbuckling swordfights then try watch this. It will not remain a classic or one of the best. It's not really trying to be the best. It's just a version with futuristic elements or it could be just a 3D gimmick. The movie wasn't bad as I expected but it has those flaws that aren't easy to ignore. It just wanted to be fun. It's good to watch as an action film. As an adaptation, it's good to watch right now but someday it'll be forgotten or ignored. But really, this is fun.

Silly movie this one but not boring. It cost $75M and it shows. There are huge problems though.

First of all we deal with a classic here, so it has a legacy that must be respected. In this version, every character is presented as a buffoon. The acting, the deliverance...

Leonardo da Vinci, we learn, has drawn up plans for a flying "war machine," a combination of dirigible and seafaring galleon. The plot and the dialogs are full of hot air like the war machine. The director is obviously thought that these were minor issues!

The action is dominated by green-screen and Matrix-like effects.

Overall: Not boring if you are 9 y.o. but a disgrace nevertheless...

I actually liked this movie. I've seen many musketeer movies through the years and this one wasn't the best one in my opinion but it was certainly not the worst either. It has a lot of adventure and cool scenes with good special effects.

I did not expect to see Milla Jovovich in a movie like this but she really pulled it off. And it was pretty nice seeing Orlando Bloom playing a villain for a change, I've had the feeling that he always plays the a character with same qualities in almost every movie (Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Kingdom of Heaven etc).

This movie is much more adventurous and wild than the '93 version and in my opinion these two can't really be compared because they are made for different audiences. All in all this is a great movie to watch together with your friends.

There is a saying that goes by the words "Don't fix it if it ain't broke". While there has been umpteen re-makes of the classic novel by Alexandre Dumas, this latest adaptation is not one that Dumas would be proud of. Rather, this film is a desecration of fine prose and the resting place of Dumas himself. The logic defying script expects the viewer to suspend reality with ships that fire cannons while sailing through the air, Ninja styled breach and entry, a "Mission Impossible" styled heist and exotic weaponry, all within the confines of what was supposed to be the renaissance period of 17th century France.

I have found this movie mostly disappointing, starting with the totally unnecessary satire in the script. It is one thing to inject a little comedy, but where is the need to make a parody of one the most widely translated works of literature? Played by Logan Lerman, D'Artagnan sets out to become a musketeer and arrives in Paris to find the famed trio Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Aramis (Luke Evans) and Porthos (Ray Stevenson) disbanded and de-commissioned by Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz). After a bravado skirmish with the Cardinal's guards, the young but inexperienced King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox) reinstates Athos, Aramis and Porthos to their former rank and even has D'Artagnan join them for good measure. The awesome foursome then discovers the Cardinal's deadly plot to overthrow the King. By employing Athos's former lover the beautiful but deadly assassin M'lady De Winter (Milla Jovovich), the Cardinal fabricates infidelity between the Queen (Juno Temple) and England's Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). By doing so, the devious cardinal plots to unleash war on the European Continent, and in the process plans to dispose the King and Queen of France, while acquiring the throne of France for himself. It is now up to the (four) musketeers to prevent France and England from plunging into war by stopping M'lady De Winter from executing the Cardinals evil plan.

With a budget of US$ 100 million, Alexandre Dumas' complex plot is simplified for this movie but hugely amplified with visual effects and 3 D. The effects are literally blown out of proportion while 3 D does not appear to have served its purpose. In comparison, the 1993 title still holds its ground with a lowly budget of US$17 million. The very obvious difference is in the screenplay. In adapting for film, both versions have strayed from the book, but there is still a lot of focus on the story in the 1993 version. With this 2011 remake, director and co-producer Paul .W. S. Anderson has unwisely sacrificed an engaging and all time favorite work of fiction for a very expensive piece of cannon fodder. There is a legend behind the story of the three musketeers and it stands for valor and honor, the protection of king and country and the defense of justice by fighting corruption. Sadly, none of this is even remotely brought to light in Anderson's version. Having previously worked with Milla Jovovich on the zombie infested "Resident Evil" franchise, Anderson sticks to his guns with flamboyant action and goes to the extent of throwing in blades, explosives, zeppelins and yes, fancy fencing . To an extent, creativity in adapting for the screen is always appreciated. However, by overdoing it Anderson has paid a very heavy price as he has not only overlooked core elements of the story, he has also not given due detail to any of the characters. Who were the three musketeers? What made them famous? Why have they pledged alliance to a young and weak King? Regrettably, Andrew Davies and Alex Litvak's screenplay does not justify a franchise re-boot by avoiding early origins of the musketeers and the trio's prominence in the French Monarchy.

For a period piece set in the 17th century, costumes, props and sets seem to be convincing. But what do I know; I haven't been alive for the last 400 years. Although Anderson scores in this area, he fails again with the totally uninspired acting. Lerman plays a hot-headed D'Artagnan, but not with the same passion as portrayed by actors before him. As the titled musketeers, I just could not feel that patriotic vibe from Macfadyen, Evans and Stevenson. As Buckingham, Bloom oozes with cool and makes a grand entrance but his screen time is limited, so don't expect too much swashbuckling as his roles in "Pirates of the Caribbean". Jovovich is the same as ever, only here she does not have zombies to kill. My biggest disappointment is the underused Christoph Waltz. We have seen before how fearsome a villain he can be as the conniving and scheming Col. Landa in Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds". Yet somehow Waltz fails to maintain that same intensity. It becomes all the more disappointing because the Cardinal is supposedly a central yet treacherous character, but in this film he doesn't appear to be so. Perhaps it all boils down to the script again although I was expecting more from Waltz in comparison to the rest of the actors, as he could have actually been the film's saving grace.

At the end of it all, this latest adaptation will not be worth remembering and will go down as a half-baked attempt at remaking a movie that has been made too many times. In my book, the 1993 version still rules!