The Three Musketeers

This is a very ordinary version of The Three Musketeers. Film versions of classic novels should at least bear some resemblance to the plot of the novel from which they are adapted, even if they are just pot-boilers intended for a family audience like this one, and not meant to be taken too seriously. But this is a very loose adaptation indeed.

The acting is just up to the level required and the dialogue is a mix of pseudo-17th century and contemporary Americanisms which fail to convince the viewer that he/she is watching a picture set in 17th century France. Though the production is quite a handsome one, with the sets, locations, and costumes all nice to look at, the characters are not well-drawn, in particular those of Cardinal Richlieu, portrayed as an out and out villain, admittedly enjoyably, but with little depth, and D'Artagnan who is played as naive, arrogant and pompous and not as a particularly likable character.

Other comments stress that this is a Disney picture made for the family, but that should not save it from criticism. Compare it with Disney's Treasure Island, or Kidnapped, both much superior adaptations. Nor have they helped children understand the novel. Because it is so loosely based they would hardly recognise it as The Three Musketeers if the characters' names had been changed, though I do agree that film adaptations don't have to follow the source novel absolutely faithfully.

But is it entertaining? Yes and no. The villains are hiss-able, Aramis, Arthos and Porthos are sometimes entertaining, despite the questionable dialogue they are given, and Richlieu, though often over the top, has his moments. The action scenes are OK but not done with any great verve compared with the Richard Lester version. Milady does not feature as a really central character in the plot as she should and in fact many of the novels' characters do not appear in the film at all.

Read the book and see the 1973 version and forget this one if you are over 16.

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.

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.

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.

Nope, it's by no means an accurate adaptation of Dumas' original work. Umm, does nanyone really care? Dumas' plot, while interesting in and of itself to many, is probably not one that many folks who think of "the Three Musketters" could actually _tell_ you.

This movie sets out to more or less capture the feel of such films, rather than the source material itself. In that regard, it's not too badly done. The characters are pretty broadly drawn, but adequate for the younger audience they're aimed at. Sutherland, Platt, and Sheen all seem way too young, but at least the first two are entertaining. Platt in particular manages to steal every scene he's in.

By the same token, Richelieu's character is simplified to "generic bad guy." The King and Queen seem too young as well (although they're represented age may be novelistically and/or historically accurate - again, could most folks really tell you, or care?).

Overall, I'd recommend the movie for some light entertainment, but don't take it too seriously.