The Musketeers

Comparing books to on screen representations is always tricky; what you see on the page isn't going to be the same as others may. The Musketeers have appeared in so many guises, from Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland camping it up in 1993 (between this and Batman and Robin, it's amazing Chris O'Donnell has continued to do so well), through to the kiddy cartoon 'Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds'. Do a search for a picture of Porthos, and you'll likely find Captain Archers Beagle from Enterprise. They have become a pastiche of themselves, more known for their catch phrase as their actual back stories.

None have really got as close to the original books as this series.

Aramis may be a former priest, who seems able to charm any lady he comes into contact with, but neither of those qualities are over played. Athos is a dark, brooding, level headed father figure in the group. His back story with Milady de Winter becomes apparent quite quickly, and is sure to continue to be a thorn in the side of the Musketeers adventures. Porthos becomes much more real in this series. Still larger than life, still living life with violence and a smile, but with a much broader history and reason for being the way he is. They've fought in wars in the name of the King, and come out with not only the scars but the camaraderie that goes with it. Captain Treville does a great job in keeping them in line.

And D'Artagnan is the country bumpkin. Ruled by his passions, his skill as a Musketeer are evident, but he still need tempering. He has great great chemistry with Constance, who is friend, mummy and potential love interest to him, but like Athos/Milady, that journey will take a while to reach fruition.

This is definitely the best Cardinal. Yes, he's evil. Yes, he plots and schemes to destroy the Musketeers. And, yes, his motivations are driven by more..fiscal..desires. Yet, he's also a lot more believable and watchable for doing so. Not just some one dimensional monster, with a single plan, he even helps the Musketeers at times (for his own benefits, of course). The Musketeers may not like him, but nor can you see them running him through, like they do to many of their other foes.

The sets and costumes are great; from the Musketeers understated leather armour, to the Cardinals pitch black flowing cloak that make him look like a Dr Who baddie (yes, the irony). From the Royal palaces with their sumptuous ceilings, to the hustle of the newly redesigned Paris. It flows. The quality may be film set clean (and there may be the occasional Hollywood explosion), but it all adds to the overall rip roaring adventure, that fits perfectly into the time slot allowed, while the characters and their interplay pulls the stories along at a brisk pace.

I have to admit I found the first episode OK it wasn't amazing, but the second episode the characters started to grow on my - love the casting on all the musketeers and well.... its Peter Caapaldi!!

I always enjoy a light hearted historical adaptation and have to admit my favourite thing about this series so far is the costumes and the sets - the lighting is fantastic. It really gives the show the right atmosphere. it i'm being fussy the one thing that I wholly dislike is the theme tune - I just don't think it fits.

Give it a chance we are only just getting to know them, its fun, its frolicy, its BBC 1 on a Saturday night!

A very nice TV show with a wonderful flair, the sets, the costumes, the actors everything just fits perfectly. The show really makes you feel like being right there in the 17th century. So many interesting characters, you really feel with the characters. I liked every season, there's a lot of variety no episode feels the same.

--8 out of 10 stars--

I'm not one to squabble over mismatches between source material and movies - as long as the story is consistent within its own universe.

From this point of view, this series has managed to put all of the recent Hollywood adaptations to an absolute shame.

First of all, the adaptation is so good that sometimes it's difficult to say where the Dumas novels end and where the adaptation begins. Sure enough, the events from the books aren't borrowed entirely and sequentially but rather they are somewhat transformed and scattered.

The main plot points are there, but with extra background and extended events which strengthen character building.

This is definitely a necessary step especially because the original story (so very popular) has turned the characters, their demeanor, names and status into stereotypes ... and stereotypes can be boring especially when the original context is transformed.

The musketeers keep their names, general demeanor but their background stories are enriched (while keeping the main points).

Aramis is a former priest with a soft spot for the ladies ... but there's much more in the hold. Athos remains somewhat misanthropic with lots of mystery behind him (and with a history alongside Milady de Winter) Porthos gets more of an overhaul especially given the original largely straightforward character type. D'Artagnan in turn seems to be more of a bon-vivant type now and although he keeps his original motivation and history, he is portrayed here a lot more child-like. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, but we'll have to wait and see what the writers will make of it.

Richelieu gets a great portrayal from the future Doctor Who actor, greatly improving upon the original character with more details and more political plots which are mostly well-thought out as opposed to the incredibly brainless plots of the Hollywood movies. Let's hope they'll keep up the kind of work that we've been shown in the first few episodes.

Obviously, nothing is perfect. There are inconsistencies here and there as well as questions left hanging. But we've got at least a season to see where they lead.

When I first heard of this show, I looked at wikipedia to get the critics reaction, and found many were lukewarm at first but liked the show after awhile. But for me, this was a winner from episode one, a light-hearted, old-fashioned swashbuckler with a brisk pace and a nice sense of humor.

While I read the book, that was probably 40 years ago, and I mainly remember the Richard Lester movie. Based on the first few episodes, I'm a bit disappointed in the two main women; the good one seems rather bland, and the evil one seems rather uncomplex for what I recall was, in the book, a fascinating character. I'm hoping that improves. But overall, lots of fun.