Los tres mosqueteros

One thing people who write reviews about this movie are forgetting is that this is a family movie. I love this movie. Its fun to watch. It has cool sword fights and all that good stuff. In my opinion this is my favorite version of the movie. The soundtrack was awesome. I recommend this movie to anyone who loves the Three Musketeers or just a family movie.

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.

Just saw this film for the first time in 10 years and I still really enjoyed it. The characters are funny, the actors are perfect for the roles they were given and the story, as often as it has been told, was well executed. The three musketeers is a story I have grown up with. I've seen and read pretty much every version out there, but this is still one of the most enjoyable versions. It is a film that you can enjoy at any time of the day. It is not a popcorn kind of film and you don't have to pay endless amounts of attention either. It is not a brain teaser. Just kick back and enjoy. You will not regret watching it if you are looking for a light hearted comedy with a pinch of drama.

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.

First and foremost, if you have read the Dumas book, then you realize that this movie doesn't resemble the novel in the slightest. The only thing that this movie got right was the names of the characters!

However, I am a big advocate in saying that you should never compare a movie back to its book, and I use this movie as an example. This story has been "Disney-fied" so that it can be called a family film. If you read the book, a true adaptation would not be family entertainment. Disney changed everything that they do. Read the Tarzan novel and compare to the cartoon. BIG changes there. The Little Mermaid. How convenient that Disney left out the fact that Ariel dies at the end of the story.

But what we should judge is the end result. This movie is still entertaining, despite having nothing to do with its literary influence. The characters are portrayed with the same attributes that they have in the book. For instance, D'Artagnan, while very duty bound and honorable, is young and headstrong, and prone to impulsive decisions that will help him to prove his skill and worth. Porthos is self serving and self praising, very vain and cocky, yet has a lust for the finer things in life. Aramis is humble and religious, but very skilled and intelligent, making him a very formidable soldier, yet he also loves the finer things in life. And Athos loves his wine, trying to bury himself in a alcoholic haze to hide the pain that he suffered in losing the love of his life. All of these come through in the movie, and all of the actors were great in performing them.

As far as the story is concerned, Disney likes things black and white, good vs evil. And so, the story changes to make the Cardinal a power hungry man with his own interests in mind. He wasn't like that in the book or in real life, but he was underhanded, and Tim Curry does another great job as the villain that he steals the show.

Overall, a great and enjoyable movie, worth watching with the family.