The Three Musketeers

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!

I've read other reviews lambasting the historical inaccuracies, the deviation from the original book and the technological impossibilities.....get a grip guys it's a fantasy/adventure movie and I loved it. It's beautifully stylised, the 3D works well and the action sequences are extremely well choreographed. I didn't give a "stuff" that there were a combination of accents that bore no relation to the geography, that the dialogue was campy and that it strayed well away from the original novel, which in fairness has been done to death anyway. It was fun, well made and rattling good entertainment. I read a gazillion reviews telling me how good "Drive" was........that really did bore the pants off me!

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.

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.

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.