Recensioni degli utenti

It IS the best screening of Dumas's novel so far. Russians have a certain decency and respect to classic masterpieces and this piece of work does not fail this rule. A strong emphasis on the friendship between the musketeers and a strong sense of honor that bears the marks of pure hearts , both enough to provide the power to fight and the power to love. It is a must see, especially since I don't believe the Hollywood or any other cinema school for that matter is able to come with a better mise-en-scene.

I was somehow forced to write down this review as the latest one that I saw here was an insult to the art behind this movie. I'm sick and tired of watching the yearly laboring pains of classic stories depictions. This story has no need to be put into the present days , no need for gang dialogues, no need for the Hollywood cliché.

It is one of the few most screened stories of the history and anyone mocking its epic should feel that mockery turning against him a thousand times stronger.

It's a great movie. And of course it's a bit old-fashioned for nowadays. But I really, really love it. And I haven't seen better Three Musketeers movie up till now. Though I've seen a lot. Music, songs, lyrics, actors, director - everything is just fitting greatly together to make it a really classic movie which will be still loved after so many years. And the songs they still sing and everybody, literally everybody in Russia knows the songs and even the quotes by heart. It is sometimes funny and sometimes really romantic and sometimes a bit naive film. And its surely worthwhile to watch! Boyarski (D'Artagnian) still lives in St. Petersburg and still terribly popular, especially for his role in this movie. I've seen him lately walking on the bank of Moika river - in black long coat and a black huge hat... and still with his mustache...

I was 4 when I saw this movie (or should I say serie) for the first time. I still watch it, after 20 years. The songs are great, and brings a little extra to it. I love the characters, I compare every other movie of the three musketeers with this one. No-one beats it. I think it´s the best and most well made movie of this famous book.

This particular movie, unlike many others of its kind, shows a deep and long lasting friendship, respect and love. I have seen this movie countless times and undoubtedly will watch it again. This movie doesn't age. Its characters stay with you forever. After seeing this version of "The Three Musketeers" I cannot watch any other. They all seem to lack the most imprtant thing, the one that the author wrote the book about - friendship. Most movies of this kind concentrate on the fighting and numerous stunts. I read "The Three Musketeers" and all the books that followed it numerous times. It makes me laugh when I watch American version of this movie. In "D'Artanyan" the cast is superb. The actors match their characters perfectly. The storyline follows the book, which is what I can't say about Anerican version. Growing up, my friends and I dreamed of meeting such D'Artanyan some day.... The movie was partly shot in the city where I used to live and it's true-streets became dead when the movie was shown. The next day, kids in school tried to re-enact the scenes. This movie relates the life in those times, just like the book.

I love this movie. Ever since I was a kid in Russia, I enjoyed watching this movie. Now, I really want to own a copy but can't find it anywhere. Although I am not a fan of musicals, the songs from this movie really take me back to the fun times of childhood. I haven't met a person yet who hasn't enjoyed this movie. It is a classic, and other Musketeer movies don't match it.

I am not a huge fan of musical comedies, musical action films or musical romances, and this movie is all of it in one. One should expect the characters to break into a song at any time during the movie as it is basically a filmed operette, loosely wrapped around the famous novel by Alexandre Dumas. Think 'The King and I' in Russian. Nothing unusual, however, for many Russian movies of the time. Songs were probably the only and the best sound effect available to Soviet directors back then.

However, in this particular movie everything fits in pretty nicely. Boyarsky's good looks (I dare anyone to find a better D'Artagnan in any film), Tabakov's silliness as Louis XIII, even Terekhova's acting as Milady. Credit is due to Yungvald-Khilkevich for putting it all together. The songs, written just for the movie, fit perfectly into the plot, and have become Russian classics, instantly recognized by anyone even now, 20 years later (pun intended).

The action sequences are quite good, the cinematography is beautiful, Porthos is lovable, Constance is a knockout. What else do you want from a musketeer movie?

I was born when this movie came out, so I saw it much later. Some times even now in my twenties I take out that film and watch it. The movie is very simple; it is about good and evil, adventure and misfortune. The whole romanticism with being a hero, a true hero. It is an absolute escape from the reality, but that is what it supposed to be.

Even now when we go camping with my friends we always sing the memorable songs from this movie.

The silliest and most ironic part about the movie is the duet between de'Treville and d'Artagnan, where de'Treville sings, "How old are you my child?" and d'Artagnan (Boyarski with huge mustache and is about 30-35) answers back, "I am 18 years old!" That is the greatest silliness.

This is one of the best movies I've ever seen. I suppose that's the very best way to put it.

The Three Musketeers is about a young man who sets out to earn his living as a musketeer. At the very beginning his letter of recommendation is stolen by a cardinal's "employee" and D'Argtagnan can't become a musketeer immediately. He meets three friends and has many adventures.

This movie is amazing. There's lots of laughter and excitement. The actors are phenomenal. I love this movie and I've seen it more than 30 times. If you're going to watch something, watch this.

I'm fairly certain I've seen all the iterations of the Dumas classic up to 2022. All the others combine action and comedy, as did the novel. Props to the Soviets for attempting this story, told in more detail than Hollywood's versions. It's colourful and eye-catching, but slight on action and corny of the comedy. The poor acting is surpassed in badness only by the wooden cinematography. Costume and set design are good, as is the singing -- and I would guess the director comes (like probably all the cast) from the theater, since that's the feel of it.

It's a must for fans of the story, and fans of Soviet cinema, and a pass for everyone else.

To put it simple, from my point of view this is the best A.Duma's / 3 Musketeers adaptation on screen ever, of course if you like musical.

This movie seamlessly blends the action and adventure of historical movies, with great spirit of classic 'D'Artagnan's ' tale and great, great taste of music and songs which blend in.

You get a movie with unexpectedly fresh and charming characters, lots of fun and humor and great songs.

This is one of the best movies of the Russian 'Soviet' era.

Of course a non-Russian speaking person (even with subtitles) would be hard to get a full at this movie, but the only with I have is that somebody actually do release this on DVD with English dubbing and subtitles.

People who love music movies and movies like ORIGINAL CHARLIE AND CHOC FACTORY etc - most probably be able to enjoy it....

Really a cult classic.

The Russians know how to adapt Alexandre Dumas' books very well, they know even better than Hollwyood. Your writers are better. Unlike The Three Musketeers (1993 and 2011), The Musketeer (2001), this is a film that has a good script and that adapts the story very well. Like Uznik zamka if (1988) it is a much better adaptation of the count of monte Cristo, different from the 1922, 1934 and 2002 versions made by hollywood with mediocre scripts.

I heard about 'the Soviet Musketeers' by accident, investigated it on YouTube as a curiosity, and ended up by absolutely loving it. I can see entirely why this has been remembered with enormous affection and passionate patriotic pride by generations of Russians since its original transmission in the 1970s, and held up as 'the most faithful adaptation ever' (debatable, but it certainly includes details from the book that I hadn't even remembered, such as Rochefort's purple suit!)

It treads a very skilful line between comedy, swashbuckling heroics, delightfully catchy songs, and moments of drama and heartbreak. Just thinking about this production makes me smile in amused affection -- it so very clearly loves the characters, loves the source material and has enormous fun with it; it is not literally accurate to the events of the original novel, but the changes it makes in the name of compression generally work very well and convey a lot of meaning. For example, d'Artagnan finds himself bidden to play a highly symbolic game of chess with the Cardinal, in which the roles of the King (weak and in need of constant oversight and protection), Queen (can be made to do whatever the player wants), pawn, and knight (the Cardinal is willing to overlook a mistake and refrain from removing him from the board) are all alluded to by the great man with very clear intent.

Most adaptations of this sort of story end up giving the impression that they are mainly interested in it as an excuse to throw in as many big action sequences as possible. The thing is that this production isn't all about the stunts and the action scenes and delivering big showpiece sequences onscreen; it's not that they don't have action scenes, including plenty of extra ones that aren't in the book, or stunt moves. It's that those aren't the main selling point. It's not being marketed as an action movie, but a literary adaptation with friendship as its main theme, and the music and comedy is in the service of the characters. We laugh at d'Artagnan's over-enthusiasm, but we love his audacity, and we warm to the loyalty and teasing amongst the four. Despite the improbable format (a musical version made for domestic TV transmission by a cash-strapped Soviet Union?), this really does feel so much more 'right' in its coverage of the story than one would ever expect.

The depiction of the characters is brilliant (with the possible exception of Milady, with a case of deplorable 1980s curls; she is supposed to be beautiful but as a result spends much of the film looking frankly pretty awful!) The actor who plays d'Artagnan is naturally much too old to pass as the lofty age of eighteen to which his character so proudly lays claim, but it simply doesn't matter; I was strongly reminded of Douglas Fairbanks in the utter bounce, self-confidence and ridiculous zest of the performance. But it's sensitively done -- he can also portray him as convincingly distraught or appalled without losing a beat. The death of Constance (midway through the plot in this version) is played absolutely straight, and knocks a lot of the bumptiousness out of the character, as well as giving him a powerful grieving ballad.

Aramis is just perfect. It hadn't occurred to me, but of *course* musical-Aramis is going to be an elegant, deceptively angelic show-off tenor role... who is also a beautifully economical and lethal swordsman, as well as being given to soulful melodies ;-)

I think this is the first adaptation I've seen where the role of Aramis is actually in danger of overshadowing Athos, at least until the identification of Milady, at which point Athos comes into his own. But it's also the first live-action version I've seen where the portrayal of Athos actually resembles my own conception of the character: he doesn't have Aramis' obvious charm and good looks, but he is sensitive and distinguished in face and bearing, even when he is drunk. 'His' scenes are the ones in the tavern where (thanks to the compression of the plot) he relates to d'Artagnan the marital misadventures of his 'friend' the Comte de la Fère, overhears and confronts Milady, and then in true swashbuckler style saves d'Artagnan from drinking the poisoned wine by pulling the pistol from his belt with which he has just been threatening Milady, and using it to shoot the fatal glass out of his young friend's hand with unerring aim.

And that pivotal scene -- the 'ballad of Athos' -- is so beautifully done by both actors: d'Artagnan's dawning realisation and horror, Athos dishevelled and clearly haunted by the returning ghosts of his past, the recurring motif in the lyrics of the lilies that bloom in the dark pool (where, in this version, we presume Athos believed he had drowned his wife) and in the form of the fleur-de-lis on her shoulder, the moment where Athos momentarily burns himself on the candle flame and clearly has a flashback to the memory of that brand, then pulls himself together and tries to disclaim the whole story ("I tell such terrifying tales when I'm drunk") while d'Artagnan, aghast with pity, can't look away. The song itself is just that ominous little electronic motif (a repeated descending minor third?), but it's all in the delivery and the body language.

Porthos, who doesn't get a song of his own, other than a bit of occasional bass obbligato, is a bit of a caricature -- but then he always is. This version of Porthos wears a bow tied in his hair, which I'm not sure is canon but neatly evokes the book-character's tastes in showy clothing, and oddly enough doesn't look in the least feminine. He has a tendency to fight by simply picking up objects or people and ramming them together, showcasing his strength as versus Aramis' graceful economy of movement and d'Artagnan's tendency towards crazy stunts; I really liked the way that all the characters are given distinctive fighting styles.

Another thing that I was struck by was the surprising rough edges in the singing/recording compared to modern films. It's not done in a bad way; the effect, paradoxically, is to make the performance sound as if it is genuinely being sung by real people, because the performers aren't always perfectly positioned behind the microphone or producing immaculately filled-out tone. When Aramis does his show-off high tenor notes, they're very impressive, but they are also ever so slightly vulnerable and human. (Ironically, a lot of the singing, according to the vocal credits, was in fact dubbed by other performers; the cheerfully unpolished chorus in the theme song, which we see the musketeers singing as they ride through the streets, isn't being performed by the actors as an impromptu ensemble, although it sounds very much as if it is, and in a good way.)

One more memorable musical moment, in a film that has many, is the scene where Rochefort and Milady are conscripted, somewhat to their embarrassment, to demonstrate the content of a scurrilous song about the Cardinal at the request of the latter, only to eventually get carried away and clearly start enjoying the performance a little too much...

I felt that the film did tend to fall off a bit after the climax of d'Artagnan's return with the diamond studs, but that tends to be the case with pretty much all adaptations, and I suspect the basic issue lies with Dumas and the source work. There is definitely a lot of compression and re-ordering going on, some of which works, e.g. The aforementioned combined tavern scene and the early death of Constance, and some of which results in material being retained (d'Artagnan's encounter with Kitty, the bastion at La Rochelle) which doesn't really have any purpose other than having occurred -- in some other context! -- in the original book.

This isn't a 10/10 production; it's got rough edges and not all the scenes are as good as each other. It's not even 'my period' of popular music (early-mid 20th century). But it is immensely endearing. It takes the story seriously while not taking it seriously at all, and manages to bounce with utter unselfconscious joyous excitement. The actors apparently had a great time while making the film and hung around together offscreen as well as on, and it shows.

I don't think this ever had any ambitions to be great art. It's just one of those cases where everything -- actors, script, performances, music, direction -- somehow came together right, and to heartwarming effect. I can absolutely understand why it has apparently become a cult classic, why people treasure memories of watching repeats on TV, why schoolgirls fell for Aramis en masse, and why it seems to have subsequently acquired a vigorous online fandom. I now have an entire playlist of related videos and excerpts!

Russian film adaptation of the Dumas' classic Three Musketeers is not the best of Soviet cinema. It definitely shows why it falls short while building up the story in the first half an hour. Characters are cartoonish. Story is of typical and acting is stagey -typical to the Soviet comedies of the time-. There is no interesting camera work or editing. Not all the musical scores are topping the charts, some of them are off key and offering mismatching tones for the song.

Of course its important to analyze the film in the right context, namely neutralization of the cultures and censorship in Soviet era. Film takes Dumas' worldwide known story and easily adapts it to a Russian speaking apolitical(!) France. Unsurprisingly, this simple story and plain adaptation wins the hearts of the ex-Soviet nations. Hence its high rating.

Unfortunately there are not many good things to tell about Russian D'Artanyan. I'm not sure if i would recommend this film to people who are not interested in Dumas' works or Soviet cinema. So don't get hyped by the high rating, in the end its an overrated TV film.

Possibly the worst 'mini-series' of all time. In fact, I was only able to make it through the first 20 minutes before having to shut it off entirely. Absolutely everything about this is bad, from total lack of direction using cheap hand-held camera work to the most dreadful music ever written. All the 'actors' are dubbed, there is no live sound recorded, and the voices that are there are all terrible actors. The muzak makes elevator trash sound like Mozart by comparison. And it's accompanied by some sort of really cheaply made synthesizer. The costumes were apparently designed for some community theatre production by amateurs. The sets are cheaply made from cardboard cutouts. And worst of all it's exceedingly DULL, even for the short time I watched it. How this ever got the rating it did is totally beyond my compression, unless they were all from Russian voters. If you want to check out for yourself how bad it is, it's available on you tube.

A properly light-hearted adaptation of A. Dumas' book, with a lot of singing, dancing, fencing and prancing around.

What's bad about this movie, is that it's ultimately brainless and looks like it was made for 8-year-olds, or something, but this is why I still remember it in the first place - because I first saw it when I was about that age. (True, this is just the age when people normally read the book). Another disadvantage is that the characters don't look like Frenchmen at all - and don't even attempt to, except D'Artagnan and possibly Athos. These two arguably do have something "French" about them.

What's good about this movie is that it offers no angle to the wind, and you can take it in like a glass of beer - you're through before you even know it.

One more thing, the film was obviously made under a strong influence of "CJ Superstar", which shows especially in the fact that Aramis is the spit and image of Ted Neeley (with a goatee) - looks like him and sings like him, though I can't say if that's good or bad.

Score it 3/10.