Les trois mousquetaires

This is a very ordinary version of The Three Musketeers. Film versions of classic novels should at least bear some resemblance to the plot of the novel from which they are adapted, even if they are just pot-boilers intended for a family audience like this one, and not meant to be taken too seriously. But this is a very loose adaptation indeed.

The acting is just up to the level required and the dialogue is a mix of pseudo-17th century and contemporary Americanisms which fail to convince the viewer that he/she is watching a picture set in 17th century France. Though the production is quite a handsome one, with the sets, locations, and costumes all nice to look at, the characters are not well-drawn, in particular those of Cardinal Richlieu, portrayed as an out and out villain, admittedly enjoyably, but with little depth, and D'Artagnan who is played as naive, arrogant and pompous and not as a particularly likable character.

Other comments stress that this is a Disney picture made for the family, but that should not save it from criticism. Compare it with Disney's Treasure Island, or Kidnapped, both much superior adaptations. Nor have they helped children understand the novel. Because it is so loosely based they would hardly recognise it as The Three Musketeers if the characters' names had been changed, though I do agree that film adaptations don't have to follow the source novel absolutely faithfully.

But is it entertaining? Yes and no. The villains are hiss-able, Aramis, Arthos and Porthos are sometimes entertaining, despite the questionable dialogue they are given, and Richlieu, though often over the top, has his moments. The action scenes are OK but not done with any great verve compared with the Richard Lester version. Milady does not feature as a really central character in the plot as she should and in fact many of the novels' characters do not appear in the film at all.

Read the book and see the 1973 version and forget this one if you are over 16.

This film is but a true fun adventure. It's not to be taken absolutely serious. Nor a direct adaption of the classic book. Has quite notable performances by Kiefer Sutherland, Michael Wincott, Rebecca De Mornay, Gabrielle Anwar, and Paul Mcgann. The cinematography as well is noteworthy, two shots that stand out, that i always use in compilations, the shot of them riding across the plains, and when they charge the castle at the end, with an army of musketeers behind them; always takes my breath away. This is a fun movie! Watch for an escape of reality.

One thing people who write reviews about this movie are forgetting is that this is a family movie. I love this movie. Its fun to watch. It has cool sword fights and all that good stuff. In my opinion this is my favorite version of the movie. The soundtrack was awesome. I recommend this movie to anyone who loves the Three Musketeers or just a family movie.

Nope, it's by no means an accurate adaptation of Dumas' original work. Umm, does nanyone really care? Dumas' plot, while interesting in and of itself to many, is probably not one that many folks who think of "the Three Musketters" could actually _tell_ you.

This movie sets out to more or less capture the feel of such films, rather than the source material itself. In that regard, it's not too badly done. The characters are pretty broadly drawn, but adequate for the younger audience they're aimed at. Sutherland, Platt, and Sheen all seem way too young, but at least the first two are entertaining. Platt in particular manages to steal every scene he's in.

By the same token, Richelieu's character is simplified to "generic bad guy." The King and Queen seem too young as well (although they're represented age may be novelistically and/or historically accurate - again, could most folks really tell you, or care?).

Overall, I'd recommend the movie for some light entertainment, but don't take it too seriously.

First and foremost, if you have read the Dumas book, then you realize that this movie doesn't resemble the novel in the slightest. The only thing that this movie got right was the names of the characters!

However, I am a big advocate in saying that you should never compare a movie back to its book, and I use this movie as an example. This story has been "Disney-fied" so that it can be called a family film. If you read the book, a true adaptation would not be family entertainment. Disney changed everything that they do. Read the Tarzan novel and compare to the cartoon. BIG changes there. The Little Mermaid. How convenient that Disney left out the fact that Ariel dies at the end of the story.

But what we should judge is the end result. This movie is still entertaining, despite having nothing to do with its literary influence. The characters are portrayed with the same attributes that they have in the book. For instance, D'Artagnan, while very duty bound and honorable, is young and headstrong, and prone to impulsive decisions that will help him to prove his skill and worth. Porthos is self serving and self praising, very vain and cocky, yet has a lust for the finer things in life. Aramis is humble and religious, but very skilled and intelligent, making him a very formidable soldier, yet he also loves the finer things in life. And Athos loves his wine, trying to bury himself in a alcoholic haze to hide the pain that he suffered in losing the love of his life. All of these come through in the movie, and all of the actors were great in performing them.

As far as the story is concerned, Disney likes things black and white, good vs evil. And so, the story changes to make the Cardinal a power hungry man with his own interests in mind. He wasn't like that in the book or in real life, but he was underhanded, and Tim Curry does another great job as the villain that he steals the show.

Overall, a great and enjoyable movie, worth watching with the family.