A Vingança de Milady

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.

I was forced to wait 6 months between watching "The Three Musketeers" and getting an opportunity to watch this "sequel" (shot at the same time) and it was agony, though I was somewhat afraid that the second one would not live up to its predecessor. I am glad to say that I was completely wrong and that this one more than lives up to its companion. The action is just as fast and the characters as endearing (because, as we learn, only Porthos could find "a new way to disarm himself" - and then make it work when it counted!) But comedy aside (such as our heroes eating breakfast in the middle of a battle), the serious turns that had to be taken in order to stay true to Dumas' novel were very well done also. Oliver Reed imparts his loathing for Milady DeWinter not only with his words, but also with the expression in his [gorgeous] eyes and when he holds her at gunpoint in order to get the Cardinal's warrant, several seconds go by in which you as a viewer actually believe that he will kill her right there in cold blood. In fact, Reed is, in my opinion, truly the star of this picture as his character of Athos attempts to mentor young D'Artangan and prevent him from being hurt. Michael York is, as usual, wide-eyed and very courageous and Finlay and Chamberlain continue to be terrific fops but it is Reed that carries them through. Kudos also have to go to Faye Dunaway as Milady - she is truly evil and charming at the same time and you can see how her character manages to be so good at what she does. I encourage everyone to see this movie - especially as a companion to "The Three Musketeer" - and support those in favor of having an edited-together three hour version. It is truly a classic. (And side note to my fellow students - if you don't have time to read the book "The Three Musketeers," rent these two movies and you'll get the gist of what you need to know.)

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.

Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan are back; or more precisely, are still here; for the second half of the Dumas novel. As I'm sure most fans know, this was meant to be part of the complete Three Musketeers, before the Salkinds split it into two films. This led to much litigation and the creation of the "Salkind clause" in movie contracts.

Spoliers-The film takes up where the first part left off; D'Artagnan and the Musketeers have saved the Queen from embarassment and confounded the evil Cardinal Richelieu. D'Artagnan is now a full fledged Musketeer (although, in the novel, he was still just a guardsman).

Now the Cardinal hatches a new plot to persuade the Duke of Buckingham from joining the protestant Huguenot rebels at the city of La Rochelle. Milady is sent to persuade him to change his mind or kill him. Although Buckingham imprisons her, he underestimates the power of her charms. The Duke meets a tragic end and Milady returns to France to seek her revenge on D'Artagnan.

Meanwhile, D'Artagnan rescues his mistress Constance and places her in safekeeping. He learns the true identity of Milady and the mystery behind Athos' melancholy.

The Musketeers are sent to fight at La Rochelle and uncover the Cardinal's plot to kill Buckingham. Although the other Musketeers care little, D'Artagnan owes a debt to Buckingham and tries to stop the plot.

D'Artagnan pays a terrible price for his efforts, but emerges as a lieutenant of the Musketeers. He has taken his place as the leader of the group, but will find little solace in his promotion.

As with the first film, the performances are spot on. Everything is the same, as it was filmed at the same time. It is best viewed as a whole with the Three Musketeers.

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.