Les Trois Mousquetaires

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!

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.

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!

Yet another adaptation of the Alexandre Dumas classic Three Muskateers, however this tale came with way too much modernization for my taste. Flying battle ships, automatic cannon launchers, and tricked out vaults were just a few of the technological feats that were only a necessity because the story needed something more to make anyone care long enough to stay in their seat the full running time. I felt that from the trailer there was a desire to make this a larger than life visual extravaganza, with the wide and aerial views of the French and English landscapes, along with the huge explosions the viewer was supposed to be amazed. The only amazing thing that I found was that the only way to remember that we were experiencing a story in Paris, France is that the characters kept mentioning it, otherwise with all the varying accents it was easy to forget where the story was taking place, I don't recall one person speaking with a French accent or even interjecting a bit of French for some authenticity, not once. And don't even get me started on the ridiculously constructed chance meeting of D'artangnan (Logan Lerman) and the Muskateers. I have to admit that I found The Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) to be delightful, he was a balanced mix of charm and cunning. But what the heck was going on with King Louis the XIII (Freddie Fox), a fashionisto? No one seemed to be immune to the whiles of MiLady de Winter (Milla Jovavich) and you just get the feeling that she is the only woman in the world with an adventurous side, she was everywhere. All I could think of while watching this film was, this is the stupidest Three Muskateers story ever. I love movies, I love action in movies, I love classic tales, and I love fashion in any context, but I did not love this film dare say I did not much like it, it should have stuck with a character driven tale of heroism, side stepping the over the top presentation and preoccupation with fashion. My preference is the classic take on the story, the cleverness and quick wit of the Muskateers, their exceptional fencing ability and their keen sense of loyalty to the thrown as they work to mentor D'artangnan has always been enough. Don't bastardize a classic, make your film and call it Swashbuckling or something else. The story did not require 3-D, and it did not require my presence in the movie theater. I give it a red light.

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.