Os Três Mosqueteiros

D'Artagnan's character development was so compelling that it made the entire film hard to stomach. Watching a character who should've met an early demise, survive was painful. Knowing so many amazing films and TV shows have been carefully and lovingly created only to never make it to air, yet this did, hurt me to my very soul. It's a brain-cell drainer; better options exist.

This might be the strongest case for stronger copyright protection. Alexander Dumas created a masterpiece and it was reduced to this.

I really don't like to mock work but it just felt so pedestrian. Granted Locations, Lighting, Camera, Art, Costume, HMU, and the behind the stage did a good job making what they could from what they had.

To be fair I only managed 45 mins of this movie, it may well get better in the second half....... But I doubt it. This is one of the worst films I've ever seen, the acting is so wooden and hammy, I've seen more effort and skill from a school nativity play. It seems like no one could be bothered to put any effort in and everything was filmed on the first take

The script, costumes and direction are somehow worse than the acting. None of the characters are likeable which could maybe just about help this movie. The character development is nonexistent, not helped by the fact nothing happened in the 45 mins I actually managed

Simply terrible.

I thought this might be good but gave up after twenty minutes. The script is poor and poorly delivered. It's not clear whether this is a directorial choice or whether the lead, Malachi Latchman, simply can't act. It's the most wooden performance I've ever seen in any role since a 1950s B-movie. The stilted delivery of the dialogue is just depressing.

Costumes and locations are good, which makes the rest of the production so much more disappointing.

Comparison to the 1974 Richard Lester production is perhaps unfair but when the bar was set so high fifty years ago, why settle for something so low as this?

Do yourself a favour, give this a miss and get 90 minutes of your life back.

Without James Cosmo, I would have stopped watching after a short time. This is very badly cast and the actor playing D'Artagnan is just appalling. I loved the Richard Lester film with Michael York in the role and that version was well written, acted, directed and cast. This offering is none of those things and is just embarrassing except for James Cosmo who lifts everything he is in. He must owe the tax man to be in this rubbish. Why did the producers think a new version was needed and why did they employing a casting director who clearly hasn't a clue. The sets are ordinary and everything is clean and tidy meaning there is zero atmosphere. I just despair at how so many rubbish films are being produced these days and being forced on us by Amazon and Netflix.

The film is extremely difficult to watch due to Malachi Pullar-Latchman's portrayal of D'Artagnan, a 17th-century French character, which is a glaring undeniable case of cultural appropriation. His casting undermines the movie's credibility for anyone who values cultural integrity. It would be equally inappropriate to cast an African actor as a Jewish character from Israel, a white Canadian actor as a 17th-century African king, an Australian actor as a Chinese warrior, a Japanese actor as Romeo, or a southern American to play a North Korean soldier. Anyone with a basic understanding of 17th-century France would have recognized that this casting choice was misguided. Social integrity is truly tested when people begin to feel it's acceptable to appropriate other cultures. Clearly the filmmakers and actor felt this cultural violation is socially acceptable, so why not? While some may tolerate such decisions in the short term, roles filled by cultural appropriators will eventually be regarded with the same revulsion as blackface. Poor acting, poor writing, subpar cinematography, this film is a flat out disappointing and frustrating experience. Its lack of cultural authenticity and quality makes it not worth the time.