Opiniones de usuarios

Remember when IMDB was for serious people? I miss those days. Now all we get are 1 and 10 star reviews. No flavor. All these ratings are for avid lovers of the book that can't realize a different take on a classic story. I empathize, truly. There are instances where I can't set aside my bias and I truly hate a movie because it's not faithful to my beloved book. Be that the case, I won't review the film. Anyway... So no, I haven't read The Three Musketeers, as much as I love the classics. I put this on because I was looking for a fun action film and that's what I got. One: It was visually stunning! That's really what drew me in. The costumes were flamboyant and the sets were incredible. The characters are only ok, they do lack some depth. However, this is a film in the spirit of Pirates of the Caribbean, as in its swashbuckling fun. With the exception of a few foul words, it's a relatively clean action film I can enjoy with my kids. (It's even cleaner than the Disney version). I'll watch it again.

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.

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...

Lavish scenarios , spectacular action , court intrigue and exciting swordplay . Last version based on Alexandre Dumas' classic yarn of intrigue at the 17th century French court . Entertaining and fun version based on the classic Dumas novel with spectacular swordplay in nifty style , this is a modern version of the classic Dumas novel set in 17th Century France . Alexandre Dumas's source for his novel was a book by 19th-century writer Courtils de Sandraz, which was purporting to be D'Artagnan's biography ; the Musketeers were actually real people, not fictional characters created by Dumas . Producer and director Paul W.S. Anderson presents Dumas' exciting story of love and adventure , ¨The three musketeers¨ including a lot of computer especial effects , anachronisms and overwhelming aerial scenes . For this plenty FX rendition is adapted in the greatest splendor , the complete romance , the historical characters, the full novel by Alexandre Dumas though including important changes . It is packed with comedy , derring-do , intrigue , a love story , action , drama and moving swordplay . An awesome casting and big-budgeted production shot in Bavarian Studios and location make for a fairly amusement swashbuckler . This is the recent recounting of the Dumas's novel with a fine cast headed by handsome Logan Lerman as hot-headed D'Artagnan in a brave role as a young and handsome soldier of fortune , a dashing , audacious lover and nimble athlete . They must defeat a beautiful double agent and her villainous employer from seizing the French throne and engulfing Europe in war. At the beginning of the movie, the map of Europe shows several states and kingdoms of that era . This delightful adaptation based on Alexandre Dumas classic novel starts with the youngster D'Artagnan who arrives in Paris to find Mister Treville , chief of Musketeers. But he meets with three two-fisted Musketeers , rollicking adventurers , fighting to live and living to love . DÁrtagnan to be aware they are Musketeers and is invited to unite them in their objective to struggle against guards of Cardinal Richelieu well performed by Christopher Waltz and the astute Milady De Winter who is lovely as a jewel, deadly as a dagger the wickedest woman in all Christendom . Meanwhile, D'Artagnan falls in love with a gorgeous young , Constance , Gabriella Wilde , she is a golden-haired beauty entangled in a web of treachery and intrigue. Furthermore , there is developed an intrigue between Luis XIII : Freddie Fox , Queen Anne of Austria : Juno Temple , dazzling as her gilded palace for her, men dared a thousand perils , and Duke of Buckingham , Orlando Bloom ; and of course the nasty Richelieu , as evil as ever . The musketeers join forces for royal vengeance with the shout : ¨One for all and all for one¨. Then , the musketeers whose friendship has become a legend to stir the hearts of men and shouting their slogan set out to help the Queen . Straightforward as well as gallant D'Artagnan and the three musketeers scheme a plan to save her , clashing against a malicious Richelieu .

It's a nice rendition from the immortal novel with pretty budget and breathtaking scenarios . The picture contains rousing action , intrigue , romantic adventure , romance , treachery , mayhem and a lot of fence . Amusing swashbuckling with lavish production , glamorous gowns and luxurious sets . Furthermore , a vein of humour is evident here , though sometimes falling flat . For this movie itself , though , energetic and frantic are the best adjectives you could think of to describe its attraction . Charming but very young and short Logan Lerman , he bounds and leaps , fights , hits and run . Lerman executes athletic feats , moving sword-play and spectacular acrobatics , Logan performed most of the stunts in his films himself . He is accompanied by a good cast as Matthew MacFadden , Luke Evans , Ray Stevenson , Til Schweiger . Furthermore , special mention to Mads Mikkelsen , playing Rochefort, in this movie he wears an eye-patch over the very same left eye that his Le Chiffre character wept blood in Casino Royale (2006).

Adequate and colorful cinematography by Glen MacPherson stunningly showed on the splendorous images being filmed in Munich and German palaces such as Residenz in Würzburg, Lower Franconia, Bavaria . Thrilling as well as evocative musical score by Paul Haslinger , the dance music near the end is appropriate for the time period . Glamorous production design is well reflected on the luxurious interiors and exteriors stunningly filmed . Impressive sets , though many of them made by computer generator , the so called "Ring of fire" crows nest with its 31 cannons was built as a fully working version out of a mass of wood in only fourteen days by a big German company , it is on display in the Babelsberg movie studio film park. The motion picture was professionally realized by Paul W.S. Anderson . This cool filmmaker provided visual style , comedy , fencing , drama , clangorous action in equal proportions .

This classy story is subsequently remade on several versions ,as the MGM classic version in musical style by George Sidney with Gene Kelly , Paul Lukas , Gig Young , Vincent Price , Frank Morgan and Lana Turner as Milady ; 1973 amusing version by Richard Lester with Michael York, Oliver Reed and Raquel Welch ; 1993 modern adaptation by Stephen Herek with Charlie Sheen , Kiefer Sutherland, Oliver Platt and Chris O'Donnell, and 2001 rendition by Peter Hyams with Justin Chambers, Mena Suvari and Tim Roth , among others. ¨The three Musketeers¨ is an outstanding and entertaining adaptation of the classy that will appeal to the costumer genre buffs and it results to be acceptable adaptation with big budget based on the classic

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.

The three musketeers, and by god am I disappointed. I mean don't get me wrong I excepted a simple story with typical elements, nice fight scenes and a great cast that can act great. Except for the actually really cool looking fights I didn't get anything, the cast is great but the dialogs and script are so horrible even Christoph Waltz couldn't save them. The story is all over the place, you don't get to know any of the musketeers, or barely a character at all and the biggest problem: A movie doesn't have to be realistic for me but it has to make sense in his own universe of the movie (like Matrix its not realistic but logical). The three musketeers plays with the rules of physics, logic and sense of a human being like they were beanbags. Oh and surprise surprise: 3D is useless, but thats nothing new tell me a movie that really had to have 3D except for avatar or maybe tron.

Movie with a simple plot fine , one that makes no sense at all, you better don't count on my vote.

So if you can enjoy a pointless excuse of a story for some nice swordplay, have fun.

It's not your traditional Three Musketeer's story, but I think it was a creative take on it. I can see why some people wouldn't like the changes, but I feel like they help to keep the story entertaining.

Some of the pacing in the film is weird and the actions of some characters could seem a little humorous, but overall it's a fun movie that should be entertaining to those who just want something to take them out of the real world.

"After failing in a scheme to steal Leonardo Da Vinci's airship blueprints, the Musketeers..."

Seriously, the writer of "Predators" and the director of "Resident Evil" decided that Alexander Dumas masterpiece was not good enough... so they decided to add "Leonardo Da Vinci's airship" and make some other "improvements" on this horrid joke of a movie. I stopped watching when I saw Countess D'Winter sword-fighting and spinning on the wire rig. I wondered how long before the zombies would show up.

As a lover of literature, I can't stand those Hollywood adaptations. Like when someone decided to cast Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes and also ignored that the detective from Baker Street never before touched a firearm and sent the most brilliant detective ever imagined on a shooting spree around London.

Anyway, it isn't hard to understand why this $75,000,000 piece of garbage flopped in the box office. This shows that the public is not as stupid as we may think. Vox populi, vox Dei.

Following a few minutes of Assassin's Creed footage, this presents a plan intended to start a war between England and France, and only the titular heroes can stop it. Let's start with what you're probably most interested in learning; yes, this is very much a Paul W.S. Anderson film(albeit it may be his best... though he still makes mistakes, such as setting things up that he does not follow through on, pay-off to things he only introduced seconds before it, etc.), for better or for worse, and yes, it is a fun ride if you are prepared for what it is, and you can live with it playing fast and loose with historical accuracy, and how close it is to the source material(it does include one or two notable things that I'm told are in the novel, and that we're familiar with). The action is stronger than any of his others, if he still does overuse slow-mo slightly(he goes downright 300 in one sequence, and it isn't anywhere near as good), and the scenes tend to either end too soon or go on for overly long. There are a few standout situations that I won't soon forget. This uses 3D extremely well, second only to Avatar, usually adding to the atmosphere and only a few times jabbing the audience in the face with something(one or two of those occurrences could be more effective). In general, the FX are amazing. The sets, costumes and props are gorgeous, as opulent as they ought to be. Dialog is usually bad or mediocre, with one or two clever lines. The comic relief is not funny, although this can make you chuckle(not exclusively intentionally). Vital to almost any version of The Three Musketeers is D'Artagnan, and this one is reasonable. He's not obnoxious, and he can be charming. Oh, he's flat as a board... all the characters are(another mainstay of this director). Athos, Porthos and Aramis are among the numerous well-cast actors. Milla is delicious as the deceiving double-agent Lady Winter, Waltz is spot-on as Richelieu, Mikkelsen is a despicable villain, and Fox as the king does well. In fact, the latter has to both be a laughing stock(a pathetic, childish ruler devoid of perspective) and sympathetic(he's an awkward young man in love). He pulls them off, but this really could have done better if it didn't try for so much at a time. The plot is excessively convoluted, full of holes, and in the end does not hold up to any kind of scrutiny. I recommend this to fans of Jovovich and her husband. 7/10

OK... I know a lot of people on here really don't like the movie. I understand that there were things that could have been changed about it, but for the most part I really enjoyed watching the movie. I love the steampunk feel to the movie and the slow motion in the fight scenes. I will say that the girl that played Constance could have done better. She was so unemotional and flat. The Three Musketeers and D'Artagnan were great! Great fighting and great humor. I would really like to see a sequel. Lastly, the costumes were AMAZING! The dresses were so bright and colorful. The men looked GREAT! I have seen the Disney Musketeers movie and I hated the costumes from that movie. Im glad this film did such a good on the costumes.

To be honest, I was expecting The Three Musketeers to be much worse than it turned out. Is it flawed? Yes, and in a very heavy way. But is it that bad? Personally I don't think so. While there were much better movies this year such as Drive and Tree of Life, there have been much worse such as Spy Kids 4 and Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star.

Starting with The Three Musketeers' problems, it is under-characterised, particularly with Lerman's D'Artagnan. For me, the most interesting character was Richelieu. The writing is often very cheesy and anachronistic, with Lerman and Bloom getting the worst of it, though there are some nice snappy moments too with McFadyen, Mikelssen and Waltz.

The story is a wonderful one, and is well paced generally, however I would have liked more with D'Artagnan and the three musketeers.However, I do think the film looks fantastic. The costumes are beautiful, the Bavarian scenery is stunning and the cinematography is appropriately skillful. The music is suitably rousing and energetic, the direction was decent and the swordplay and stunts are fun and terrifically paced.

In regards to the acting, it was generally good. Logan Lerman is handsome and charming if rather flat, likewise with Freddie Fox. Orlando Bloom and Milla Jovovich didn't blow me over I admit, however they were both much better than anticipated.

When I first heard of Bloom as Buckingham to me it screamed of disaster, that said he was much less painful than I thought, his dialogue was bad but the performance was okay relying less on the all-looks gimmick. Jovovich is attractive and suitably cunning though I would've liked more of a haunting quality to Milady.

On the other hand, Matthew MacFadyen is perhaps the coolest Athos I've seen and James Corden is suitably oafish as Planchet. Luke Evans and Ray Stevenson give good support as Aramis and Porthos. The two best actors were Christoph Waltz, who is pitch perfect(as usual) as Richelieu, and Mads Mikelssen as a sinister Rochefort.

All in all, an entertaining if flawed movie. Those looking for a faithful adaptation, even with the references, will be disappointed, those willing to look past this and take it for what it is(like me) will enjoy it. Of the adaptations of the Dumas masterpiece, look no further than the 1973 Richard Lester film for the definitive version, with that said this was good enough to pass an hour and three quarters or so. 6/10 Bethany Cox

To date, director Paul W.S. Anderson's most noteworthy accomplishment is somehow snagging Milla Jovovich. With a filmography that looks more like state's evidence in a criminal case, I certainly had low expectations for his steampunk-lite take on the classic 'Three Musketeers' story. Much to my surprise, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

This is a refreshingly unpretentious, agenda-free film that seeks to do nothing more than entertain, and for me at least, it did just that. Populated with fun characters and featuring exciting action, 'The Three Musketeers' is pure popcorn entertainment. Grab yourself a bag and enjoy.

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

I don't understand why this film is getting so many bad reviews.

If people would bother watching the trailer, they'd know that it doesn't quite stick to the original story (ie: there are flying machines) but who cares? Get used to this, they call it Hollywood.

I watched the film and it was just what I expected; a bit of action, a bit of romance, good special effects and the Musketeers saving the day. What's wrong with that? There are many movies about the Three Musketeers and they all are quite similar. At least this one tries to be a bit different.

My recommendation is watch it when you want to chill out and fancy a "no brainer".

It would have been nice if this Mila Jovavich vehicle had anything remotely to do with the original Dumas masterpiece, but alas, it seems too much to ask of Hollywood's dread cash hounds, who, like some sort of anti-Jesus, can magically transform the finest of wine into sh*t.

I hope the angry ghost of Dumas defecates in their mouths as they sleep for foisting this god awful mess upon us. The only reason it merited any stars is because Ms. Jovavich is stunning, and the special effects were pretty. These were barely enough to rescue my PC from death by stomping after watching about half of this outrage.

If you find yourself about to watch - save yourself!

Lighten up. See the name of the director and gladly stay away or have complaints that aren't based on logic.

"What would those wires trigger,an electronic alarm?" Eeh...no,bells probably... "How come Aramis can make a leap from that height without even twisting his ankle?" God damn it,wh...Well,the musketeers are so legendary and mythological,maybe it was time to have fun with and present these guys as something close to superheroes,which the source material in a way view them as,larger-then-life...fitting words for this updated,laid-back version.

"Sophisticated" people,often say;You should read a book now and again instead of just watching simple movies." In this case,I have to reply"Take the time to see a movie and view it as a movie instead of just reading books."

Everything evolves(not always for better of course),that's everything and just cause something's classic doesn't mean that it's gold. Dumas's stories about his musketeers isn't Shakespeare,no metaphor for the afterlife,it's adventure with a splash of thriller plot-wise.

Who wants to see the same film over and over with the only difference being the actors? Not me. Adapt or die...

Most of the story is intact. Milady is still a double-agent,the musketeers still have their virtues and flaws.Dartagnan will still run into a few men during a chase and challenge them all to duels and all will show up at the same location and time and...it's silly. I said it. And that's from the book.

It's not a film that stands still,there's chasing,slicing and goofing and we get crisp cinematography for once by Anderson,good camera-work and everything about the surface is beautiful....I DO feel like a lot of hate just comes based on Andersons resume;If you"know"movies,you shouldn't like this,hence judging and sentencing it from a biased view.

The cast is mostly able and sufficient for this kind of easygoing entertainment. Walz doesn't reek of menace and evil,I hear as complaint...but what kind of Cardinal would that make? As he says"Evil is just a point of view" and lends a sophisticated,calm malice to Richelieu,who if we're honest looked a bit like a daft pedophile in Tim Currys flesh. Stevenson IS Porthos,Evans compensate lack of good material with charisma as Aramis and McFayden is funny as Arthos.

Lehrman is certainly the weak link. Don't know his age but he looks 17 tops and him challenging menacing villains and big heroes...doesn't really work and you almost laugh. An androgyn actor.

Jovovich,the directors wife,looks alright for 48:) but has way too much screen time and way too little range as an actress. Anderson should learn to separate career from personal life,at times it's almost"De Winters adventure".

Bloom in the "controversial" role as the cunning and arrogant Buckingham gives a flamboyant performance to say the least and is enjoyable,though clearly over the top.Things simmer along with not that many things to get excited about or to complain about,a solid but too familiar adventure that doesn't put our protagonists in serious harms way. Enter Mads Mikkelsen and TTT's most spot-on performance.

As Rochefort,at times a thankless role,he again stands out and rises above the material. The one-eyed captan is at his core far from a coward,which we will see but he wants results,quick,sees no point in honor and is indifferent to how an adversary is beaten. A sleazy,cool baddie worthy of walking in Lees and Wincotts footsteps. Every time he strays from the narrative,things get a bit too harmless....and the movie is most fun when it strays actually,high in the sky.

The third act raises The musketeers from a somewhat fun,somewhat hollow 5 to a 7. In the end,I judge Andersons job here,not on his own merits cause then this is a masterpiece but for it's genre. It's a fast-paced ride with airships,300 slow-mo,a finale with a duel on a rooftop to a majestic score that despite weaknesses and changes(NOT the same thing) is well worth the watch.

I don't think Dumas would be spinning in his grave even remotely,I think he'd pop up and say:"This was brave and fresh...slightly dumb but thank you for breathing new life into my work. I liked this."

The reason for one character being welcome in a probable sequel and another one not is slightly obvious and annoying though.

When I discovered that the Three Musketeers film was being made by P.W.S. Anderson I was very surprised. It's one of those classic stories that are difficult to change into brainless action-adventure movie without losing the heart and style. But I was very eager to see what Anderson would do with the material provided by the scriptwriter. I expected great action movie, with massive and beautiful sets, wonderful music and well choreographed fight scenes. And the movie is exactly what I expected it to be.

I don't care whether the plot followers the book or not - I go to the cinema to have a great fun, and great fun I had indeed. It is really done with style but Anderson's haters will never like any of his movies.

In the plot, D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) meets the legendary musketeers Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Aramis (Luke Evans) and Porthos (Ray Stevenson) after several disagreements. They end up falling into a new adventure that could threaten a new war between France and England and they need to join forces to avoid it. Among the obstacles are the spy Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich), Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom), the corrupt Cardinal Richelieu (Christopher Waltz) and his agent Rochefort (Mads Mikkelsen). In a mixture of humor, sword fights and aerial battles, the characters need to prove that bravery is above any difficulty.

The screenplay by Alex Litvak ("Predators") and Andrew Davies (of the two "Bridget Jones") takes complete freedom to retell Dumas' story. For this, they update themselves in an interesting prologue involving Leonardo's drawings for a kind of flying ship, which can serve as a war strategy for nations. While betrayals are planned, the musketeers need, above all, to find a new reason to live an adventure and, encouraged by the young D'Artagnan, they agree to rescue a jewel that could compromise relations between France and England. It is treated almost as an excuse for swords to be crossed. The almost epic battles, especially in the final act, constantly take the viewer's breath away, who is immersed in pure fun. After all, "The Three Musketeers" has always been, above any bravery it wanted to expose, entertainment.

The truth is that calling this adaptation The Three Musketeers or mentioning the name of its author, Alexandre Dumas, in the credits, is more than an insult, it is an affront. It could very well be titled Milady and the Flying Ships, which would fairly reflect what is on the scene, after all, Athos (Macfayden), Porthos (Stevenson), Aramis (Evans) and D'Artagnan (Lerman) are almost supporting characters in her history itself, serving as means rather than ends of the narrative and never justifying the reluctance of the musketeers to seek a noble enough cause that would impel them to once again defend France.

Evidently, the script preserves the central characters of Dumas' work, especially Cardinal Richelieu (Waltz) and Colonel Rochefort (Mikkelsen), as well as Constance (Gabriella Wilde). However, the similarities stop there. In a plot involving dirigible ships - the only good idea of the entire narrative -, betrayals and the tension between England and France, the scriptwriters only seek to establish, with an emphasis on the seek, the rules of the narrative after it crosses the middle of its duration, when Cardinal Richelieu devises a strange plan to frame the Queen (Juno Temple) of treason with the Duke of Buckingham (Bloom). Until then, the viewer is obliged to accompany D'Artagnan giving love advice to King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox), accompany this character rambling about the new color of fashion or laugh at the comic incursions of Planchet (James Corden), even see him getting hit by pigeon poop, certainly one of the most original gags in film history.

It is worse to imagine that the screenwriters consider themselves to be intelligent or opportune when, in a chess duel between Richelieu and Louis XIII, the former lectures the young man on the king's vulnerability in the game. In addition, it is hard work to think about the script, as when Constance convinces D'Artagnan and exposes Richelieu's plan, even establishing the place where an artifact would be that would seal the supposed betrayal. Moreover, admitting that the musketeers would escape France as easily as they would have arrived in England and without facing the slightest resistance is one of those moments of mental laziness that makes the viewer completely abandon the narrative.

"The Three Musketeers" is nothing more than mediocre and ordinary, common and obvious. Starting with the choice of protagonist, the young Logan Lerman, who had previously wrecked another franchise (Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, 2010). The boy lacks charisma, and his D'Artagnan borders on irritating. Those cast to bring the famous trio of musketeers to life are so apathetic and irrelevant that we don't even care what happens to them: Matthew MacFadyen (Pride and Prejudice, 2005), makes an Athos ready to cry at any moment; Ray Stevenson (The Punisher: In War Zone, 2008), appears as a tamed Porthos, far from the involving rebelliousness of the original; and Luke Evans even has a certain charm, but not enough to recall the conquering Aramis.

Reducing the musketeers to stereotypes, Anderson presents Aramis for his religiosity and D'Artagnan for his impetuosity. With nothing to add, they boil down to extras in action scenes, honorable and brave swordsmen fighting after any provocation for a dignified France (if this description gives you goosebumps, imagine seeing them on stage). For her part, Milla Jovovich is improving herself more and more in action cinema, dodging bullets fired at close range and crossing a protected room as if she were her Alice from "Resident Evil"; Meanwhile, Orlando Bloom, desperate to revive Will Turner, is hammy as a villain, forcing an unthreatening voice and a pompadour that would make Elvis jealous. Mads Mikkelsen succeeds in building a fragile Rochefort in the hands of Richelieu, but his last scene in the narrative suffers from chronic embarrassment and involuntary laughter. Finally, Waltz does his best to avoid the cardinal being just a caricature, but fails thanks to the reductionism of the script.

Emulating the swashbuckling genre, in his eagerness to be a new "Pirates of the Caribbean", Paul W. S. Anderson, not content with transforming the fight in the center of the city into a reissue of that feature, also adds pirate ships and makes use of the soundtrack by Paul Haslinger, which, although competent, does not come close to those of Klaus Badelt and Hans Zimmer for the tetralogy of pirates. Anderson even fails in some unnecessary shots like the one of Milady throwing a handkerchief to a fallen D'Artagnan or the one that follows the fall of a pistol from the airship; in the same sense, his predilection for circular tracking shots also has no narrative purpose, serving only to draw the public's attention that there is someone behind the cameras (it would be better if there wasn't). Unable to end his narrative correctly and betting on a pretentious hook for the continuation, the director murdered a classic work and proved his desire to establish a franchise in the best "Pirates of the Caribbean" style. He regrets that these musketeers, not Dumas's, are leagues away from Jack Sparrow and his band.

Technically, the production is better. The art direction, combined with the special effects, efficiently reconstructs the French modern age, visiting some historic monuments such as the Palace of Versailles or the Church of Notre dame. However, the fluid animation at the opening of the narrative leaves a lot to be desired, probably influenced by the 3D recording. Due to the imposition of 3D, Alexander Berner's editing has a fluid and dynamic pace, suitable for an action production, but creating the false impression that, due to the time passing quickly, the film is good. However, it is curious that in a good part of the second act, the musketeers do not even appear gracefully, a mistake that can be attributed to Berner.

Another novelty - this one, yes, much better thought out and explored - is the steampunk setting, with new weapons and even a drivable ship, which makes for a good aerial battle. But that's it. Passionate about technology and hooked on 3D, Anderson uses the most modern cameras that exist here, but he doesn't manage to create something new, pointing a sword here and throwing some things there in the direction of the public, in addition to creating a sense of depth in large sockets. If it works in the open plan, the same cannot be said for the countless times that "Game of Thrones" models and maps are filmed to show the change of scenery. Sword fights, which could be a differentiator, are little explored. The best of them, the first one, uses "300" slow motion, but that's kind of the end of it. Perhaps due to the difficulty of filming longer shots, with a lot of choreography and few cuts, the director once again opted to use his already known megalomania to blow things up.

2011's "The Three Musketeers" abandons its noble origins to become a generic of how a good action movie should be, but without the necessary elements that would set it apart from the sameness of others. Directed without creativity, interpreted without passion and realized as if its only objective were to capitalize on top of the box office, it still commits the audacity of setting up an ending that points to an eventual continuation - something that, by the way, will not happen. And to think that we reached the day when we would miss the 1993 version, which featured Chris O'Donnell as D'Artagnan and the indefectible Charlie Sheen, Kiefer Sutherland and Oliver Platt as Aramis, Athos and Porthos. If we came to consider that production an outrage, it's because we didn't even imagine that we would have this, even more catastrophic, ahead of us.