On l'appelait Milady

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.

FINALLY...a DVD release called 'The Complete Musketeers' that does justice to a proper transfer, in widescreen and looking better than when I saw it in the theater.

Watching 'The Three Musketeers' without seeing the 'The Four...' is like reading the Alexander Dumas novel; and stopping halfway through. It's a shame that it wasn't released as a roadshow 3 and a half hour film because that was the way it was originally meant to be experienced.

Phenomenal DVD package that contains both films...just the way it should be. And some very informative documentaries with the surviving cast.

9 out of 10! (Same as my rating for 'Three Musketeers')

Richard Lester's adaptation of Dumas' literary masterpiece is simply terrific, and for me the definitive version. This sequel while not quite as good is still excellent and one of the better follow-ups out there. The film is not as efficiently paced as its predecessor, but so much compensates. The cinematography, costumes and scenery are all very lavish and beautiful and there is also a rousing and energetic score to compliment. The script is witty, the story is compelling and maintains the 1973 film's spirit and the sword-play and action while slightly more slapsticky is exciting. Plus the direction is great. The cast also give it their all- Michael York is spirited and likable, Oliver Reed once again comes very close to stealing the film, Fay Dunnaway is still beautiful and haunting, Charlton Heston is calculated and imposing and Christopher Lee is simply brilliant as Rochefort. All in all, very good and if you watch this and The Three Muskerteers head to head, you're in for a great time I assure you. 8/10 Bethany Cox

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.

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.