Milady

I am not a great fan of Dick Lester's films, because there are not my cup of tea, but I must admit that he has hos own trade mark. I could easily recognize any of his movies any time. my favourite is ROBIN AND MARIAN, which is also one of his darkest. and in this film, FOUR MUSKETEERS, you have many elements in common with ROBIN AND MARIAN. Visual and directing effects that are Lester's touch. I would have imagined him directing DON QUICHOTTE as Terry Gillima did. At last for him !!!! Yes I could say hat Richard Lester are quite similar in style directors.

Continues pretty much immediately from where 'The Three Musketeers' left things. This focuses on the need of milady - nasty Faye Dunaway - to get revenge on D'Artagnan (Michael York) and girlfriend Constance (Raquel Welch).

Darker than its predecessor and possibly not as much fun, this is still as good as the first film giving the principals more time to concentrate on character rather than the origins elements. This results in wonderful turns from Finlay, Reed and especially Heston and Lee who seem to have more to do and appear to be enjoying themselves immensely.

A bit more of the wonderful Roy Kinnear would have been nice - he seems to have been thrown in front of the camera for the occasional comedy scene and as quickly removed. Overall, great fun though.

A disappointing sequel followed some year later.

Raquel Welch, Richard Chamberlain, Michael York, Geraldine Chaplin, Faye Dunaway, Charlton Heston, boy oh boy what a shining list of major stars of the 70's. The movie attracts my attention first because of the most-read French story, second the cast is absolutely another one. The chivalry tale is always the love of the directors and we have about 20 productions bearing the same name within the short movie history. The Spanish setting e.g. the fight in the old church is marvellous, I guess filming in Spain at that time didn't cost too much. Just look at the scheming and wicked black female spider Faye Dunaway is already a pure and high entertainment, and Michael York then looked really innocent and like loverboy.

This film is part two of the movie "Three and Four Musketeers".

This film is somewhat more serious in tone as is warranted by the events described in the book. Not quite as fun as the first movie but true to the classic story writen by Dumas back in 1850.

(additional comments are duplicate comments made about the Three Musketeers)

This set of films (3 and 4 Musketeers were filmed at the same time and released 8 months apart) ranks right up there with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Robin Hood" (with Erol Flynn) as one of the best in its genre (action/adventure). As an historian, I enjoyed the small touches of historical accuracy in the film. As far as I can tell, everything is just about bang-on: the costumes, the settings, the weapons, the street life, and the musketeers themselves (and yes I know the story is not "true"). The two films are quite faithful to the classic book by Alexander Dumas given some small and reasonable changes.

The sword-play in the film is the greatest! The initial duel against the Cardinal's men in the Convent is a masterpiece of choreographed combat. The battle that takes place early in the second film is hysterically funny as our heroes try to eat lunch in the middle of a war.

The actors and actresses are all wonderful, especially Michael York, Oliver Reed, Faye Dunaway, and Charlton Heston. One small weakness in the film is that it does not have the time or interest in describing how Milady de Winter seduces her jailor. I suggest reading the book to get a full understanding of that sequence of events.

Be warned, prolonged exposure to this film is likely to result in a desire for fencing lessons and historical reenactments.

Bottom line: A great film.

Don't watch this movie alone. That is, watch Richard Lester's "The Three Musketeers" with it. The two are actually the same film, shot simultaneously (in fact, the cast thought they were making one long movie, to the extent that they were *paid* for one movie; they later sued, as well they should have). In fact, one who hasn't seen Lester's "Three Musketeers" might not understand this movie. Videos and DVDs should be released only in a double-box.

Most "Musketeer" movies are travesties loosely based on Dumas. The 1993 version with Chris O'Donnell is a case in point. It uses little more than the names of characters, and it's woefully inadequate.

The script-writer in Lester's "Musketeers" movies was George MacDonald Fraser, author of the "Flashman" series. And Fraser, unlike writers of all other "Musketeer" movies, seems to have read the book. Some of the wildest things in both movies (for instance, Buckingham's shrine to Anne of Austria) are actually from Dumas. The script, rambunctious and silly as sometimes is, is startlingly close to the book.

Rumor has it that Lester envisioned "Musketeers" as a project for the Beatles. If this is true, he's fortunate he lost them. The cast is uniformly wonderful. Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, and Frank Finlay are perfect in their roles (Finlay is particularly marvelous as he, not a large man, is able to portray the huge, blustering Porthos). Michael York is a fun D'artagnan. Faye Dunaway and Christopher Lee are suitably evil. Rachel Welch, the Pamela Anderson of the late '60s, shows a flair for light comedy that was not often utilized (most of her other movies highlight her . . . ahem . . . other talents). Charlton Heston is the anchor at the center of the film as the scheming Richelieu. He doesn't have much screen time, but his presence dominates the movies, as well it should. Lester also has small parts filled with amazing talents, including Spike Milligan and Roy Kinnear. Keep your eye on a genuine Frenchman, Jean-Pierre Cassel, as the king (and, much later, in Lester's "Return of the Musketeers", as Cyrano); he's a delight in every scene.

Lester's locations are fabulous. His France looks lived-in. One gets the sense of a long, medieval period that has decayed by the time of D'artagnan in the early 1600s, and of a struggling monarchy dominated by the Cardinal trying to rebuild it. Even Cardinal Richelieu, who wasn't really evil, comes off as three-dimensional (compare Heston's subtle performance to Tim Curry's bizarre, anti-historical, one-dimensional inquisitor and fool in the 1993 version).

Being "The Three (Four) Musketeers", there are many sword-fights; Lester somehow is not a great action director, but he somehow manages to make each duel unique, and funny. In "The Four Musketeers" he's given us a duel on the ice between York and Lee that's very funny. And the climactic duel in a church is sublime.

In 1989 Lester released "Return of the Musketeers" with the same cast. Fraser's brief script for that movie (about 100 minutes) gives us the gist of "Twenty Years After", and is quite amusing and a good coda for the series (it's a shame Lester didn't get a chance to do "The Man in the Iron Mask" with a G. M. Fraser script and the same cast. The version with Jeremy Irons and John Malkovich will do, though it's darker and less loyal to Dumas).

On the whole, "The Three Musketeers" and "The Four Musketeers" are the best Musketeer movies ever made. They star men and women who were at the top of their profession at the time. The scripts are superb and there's not a wasted moment. Do not accept lesser substitutes.