The Three Musketeers

Richard Lester has to be one of the greatest directors of comedy there ever was. There are dozens of slapstick gags and situations in this movie and almost 100% of them work. And what an opulent setting they are placed in! Lester and his cohorts have created a film in which almost every frame resembles a museum painting come to life (and gone berserk.)

Lester is better with style than relating a narrative. I found it impossible to completely comprehend the story line here, and I think if you asked most people what the movie was about, they'd tell you there was a lot of swashbuckling and general mayhem and lunacy, but I doubt they'd give you much of Dumas' story. When the style is this good, however, a little fuzziness on the substance is not a fatal flaw. Still, it might keep this picture from being an all-time classic rather than "just" a most enjoyable film.

Lester is such an auteur that his direction is the main focus of this film even with such an all-star cast. It was a wise decision (actually it seems like a no-brainer) to divide what was originally shot at one time into two films, this one and 'The Four Musketeers.' There really can be too much of a good thing, and even at under two hours, 'The Three Musketeers' threatens to be overwhelming. But on balance this film is great entertainment.

Richard Lester did what no one before or since has been able to do: tell Dumas' story as magnificently as it deserves to be told. This tale gets told again and again in Hollywood, but leave it to a European to do it right. The cinematography, sets, and costumes are all fantastic, but they aren't all clean and impossibly perfect like the 1948 Gene Kelly or 1993 Kiefer Sutherland versions. Lester infuses this familiar story with an energy and tone that made his work with the Beatles successful. Yes, "The Three Musketeers" is an intriguing adventure, but the humor in their friendship, that's what draws me in again and again. And what an amazing cast he had to work with: all the Musketeers are perfect, especially big Oliver Reed, who can be silly, witty, and scary all in the same scene. The supporting cast is full of great actors, including Charlton Heston (having fun at being evil here), Christopher Lee (gets to mix deadpan humor in with his menace), Raquel Welch (cast as beautiful but clumsy, really enabling her to be a character and not just a live mannequin), Spike Milligan (doing what he does best), and most wonderfully Faye Dunaway (seductively evil: my favorite kind!). And, of course, holding it all together as D'Artagnan is Michael York, who never found a greater role.

Besides handling the shifts in tone well, Richard Lester also had the great rare luxury of breaking Dumas' large novel into two seperate movies which he filmed simultaneously. This really allows for greater character development and a truly epic scale. All of the other film versions try to cram all of that plot into 120 minutes. Not only is it impossible (in the 1993 version they simply change it completely using only the basic idea of Dumas' book), but it makes this huge complicated story with many threads seem contrived and ridiculous (the 1948 version has such dramatic and sudden shifts of tone - from wacky comedy, to romance, to heavy drama - that it can confuse and lose the audience).

This is great moviemaking.

I must admit that I was a fan of the Disney-fied version of "The Three Musketeers" in my misspent youth. The first time I saw it, I was a wide-eyed 12-year-old who thought that Kiefer Sutherland's Athos was IT as far as the character was concerned - that is, until I stumbled across this version of the much-done movie on cable last year. It was then that I watched Oliver Reed breathe a whole new life into the character of Athos with the help of a magnificent supporting cast. I have to say, I never fell off the couch laughing at the Disney version the way I did during the scene at the inn where Porthos and Aramis are attempting to pull Athos out of the well. Moreover, I never felt as though I understood the characters very well until I watched Lester's interpretation and compared it with the text of Dumas. He could not have chosen a finer cast of actors for his movie - Reed is superb as the quiet, thoughtful leader, Finlay is outlandish as Porthos, Chamberlain brings a flair to Aramis, and York seems completely immersed in D'Artangan. Yet great casting aside, the movie would be nothing if Lester had not incorporated the reality of life at court during the Musketeers' time period - the laziness and sheer excess (dogs as chess pieces on the palace lawn, wine fountains, and palace games). The fight scenes are also to be commended. They are not the overly-choreographed dances of Disney's "The Three Musketeers," but rather have a harsh reality to them. (Reed's fighting style is particularly all-out - he uses his entire body as a weapon.) In short, this movie has completely replaced the Disney version for me - as has its "sequel," "The Four Musketeers" (a must-see if you want to get the whole story and watch Porthos find "a new way to disarm himself").

I have loved this film (or rather, these films!) since I first saw them as a child in the early eighties. At that point I hadn't read the novels, but, unusually, I think no less of the films now that I have. In their broad, slapstick style of humour, they perhaps reflect the times in which they were made, rather than Dumas, but there is no lack of the original's tragedy in the scenes of Athos' past and D'Artagnan's disillusion. George Macdonald Fraser's script is as fine as you'd expect of the writer of the 'Flashman' novels and the choreography of the fight scenes has been justly praised. The foils were apparently as heavy as their Seventeenth Century counterparts and the actors' agony was increased by filming in the hot Spanish sun....

When I watched these films again a few weeks ago I was also struck by the beautiful cinematography, with the scene in the snow and the climactic fight in the convent particularly well-framed. For me, this is as near-perfect an adaptation of the adventure novel as is possible, combining romance, humour, tragedy and action with wonderful production values and a terrific script. Few other films, and no other version of the 'Musketeers', reaches this standard. Messieurs York, Reed, Finlay, Chamberlain, Heston, Ward, Lee, Milligan and Kinnear, plus Mmes Dunaway, Chaplain and Welch will forever be associated with their characters for me. Brilliant stuff!

This film, and its sequel (filmed concurrently) is by far the best movie version of the Dumas novel ever produced. The cast is excellent. The sets and costumes are marvelous. The swordplay (and there is much) is possible some of the most realistic ever filmed. And it's the only Musketeer movie I am aware of in which the Musketeers actually use muskets. Authenticity seems to have been very important to the producers, as well as staying true to the novel.

Sadly a film like this wouldn't be made these days. First off the fighting would be "punched-up" with a lot of wire work. And of course Hollywood would change the story to eliminate much of the "sleeping around" characters do (today's movie heroes in this type of movie aren't usually sexually active). They would also provide some creative story editing so that a certain character who dies in the novel would survive so as to supply the requisite happy ending. Fortunately for us this version does not suffer that kind of revisionism.

If you're a fan of Dumas or just looking for a fun film with lots of realistic sword fighting then you won't want to miss this.