Partnerfrankreich

I have just finished watching the first part of the brand-new French 2024 two-part film, and I can say without a doubt that for me, this film (and its "sequel" The Four Musketeers, actually originally filmed as a single film) has not been dethroned as the best cinematic adaptation ever of Dumas's novel.

Yes, of course, the comedic elements are predominant, unlike the very dark recent French adaptation. But there are three reasons why the Richard Lester version remains the king of the filmed versions.

1. The original Dumas version was ALSO comic in many respects, notably the contrast between the Musketeers themselves: the tragic nobility of Athos on the one hand and the comic oafishness of Porthos on the other, for example (you really have to read the book to understand that Porthos is the epitome of the "strong as a brick house but dumb as an ox" meme, a story as old as Hercules in Greek mythology, Samson in the Bible or "Big Moose" in the Archie comics).

2. The acting in the Lester version is spot on: the casting was perfect and it shows: Michael York makes for a perfect D'Artagnan, Richard Chamberlain has just the right physique for the suave, almost delicate and yet heroic Aramis of the novel, Oliver Reed's real-life penchant for the bottle lends credence to his portrayal of the noble but tragic Athos, and Frank Finley carries it as Porthos. And the same is true of the "bad guys" : Charlton Heston has what it takes to convey the gravitas of Cardinal Richilieu and Christopher Lee is appropriately sinister as the Comte de Rochefort. As for the two leading ladies, what can I say? Faye Dunaway is PERFECT as the stunningly beautiful but deadly Milady, and Raquel Welch conveys just the right mixture of innocence and "come hitherness" as Madame Bonacieux.

3. Finally -- and this really seals the deal -- the film is as about as faithful to the original novel as can be within the confines of a film (or two films, anyway). The new French version is a far more serious and darker look at the subject matter, and of course deserves its place amongst the better adaptations, but it uses the novel simply as a framework device and takes large liberties with the text, turning it almost into a different story altogether -- possibly closer to the actual historical events of the times, but that is decidedly NOT what Dumas was all about: in a famous quote attributed to him (which I have toned down a bit so as not to get this review banned), "It is perfectly all right to screw around with history as long as the screwing results in a beautiful child". With that in mind, a cinematic adaptation of a novel that is faithful to the novel rather than to actual history is to be applauded.

10/10 for this wonderful film.

It would not be very helpful for me to add much to the other excellent reviews already on imdb, so I won't: obviously, a great deal of care went into the film, the actors are excellent in their respective roles, the use of genuine locales is stunning, and the dark aura surrounding the entire film differentiates it from several other versions, including the excellent Richard Lester comic-tinged one of the 1960's.

So why do I give the film only six stars out of ten? Because, although it is a great film, it has almost nothing to do with the Alexandre Dumas novel "The Three Musketeers": it is another story altogether.

One of the great challenges of filming any Dumas novel, but especially The Three Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo, is that the original Dumas novels are awash with sub-plots that are of great interest to the reader but need to be trimmed if the adaptation is to fit within a film's usual running time.

Well, this film definitely does away with many of the complex plot lines of the novel...but only to add other, superfluous ones in its place.

Gone is any mention of the lackeys Planchet, Grimaud, Bazin and Mousqueton that added a notes both of humor and of pathos to the novel. Gone is the distinctness of the characters of the four protagonists: Athos the most noble but also the most tragic of the four, whose title is revealed at the very start of the film (!) rather than as the dénouement of the whole story; Porthos who is the strongest but also the most dimwitted of the four (a meme as old as Samson of the Bible and Hercules of Greek mythology), Aramis the suave seducer but also the plotter and conspirator, and d'Artagnan the young tyro who becomes the apprentice musketeer. One of the great strengths of the novel is how these four disparate personalities nevertheless become a tightly-knit unit of friends whose motto is "all for one, one for all."

Instead we are treated to what is almost an entirely different story, in which not only are characters wildly different from their novel counterparts, but new characters are introduced and new plot lines have been totally invented, none of which I will detail here so as to avoid spoilers, but which turns the film into some other story than that recounted by Dumas.

If I were to judge the film solely on its own merits, I would probably give it a higher rating, but all I can say here is that: it is a fine story, just not "The Three Musketeers!"

A critic once famously described "Waiting for Godot", the absurdist two-act play written by Samuel Beckett in which the characters engage in much discussion but absolutely no action whatsoever and in which nothing is resolved, as "A play in which nothing happens...twice." Yet everyone, including the critic in question, consider the play as being a masterpiece of the 20th century. I, of course, apparently being a total dimwit, miss the point entirely.

The same can be more or less said of this film. Oh sure, a couple of things actually happen (a garishly decorated and lit fire truck, made up to look like Santa's sleigh, passes by an eagerly awaiting crowd, a bunch of teenagers manage to score some beer and drink happily in a parking lot before couples form to engage in some making out in various cars), but I can't help but feel it is nevertheless a film in which (almost) nothing happens...from beginning to end.

Indeed, the writer and director clearly mislead us into thinking that something WILL actually happen (the teens in question engage in some dangerously high speed racing, while two policemen who are expressly watching out for speeders are apparently oblivious to that), and you expect some sort of damage to ensue...and then the scene abruptly changes to another set of characters, and by the time we are back to the teens, they too are somewhere else.

I suppose the idea was to create a sort of "anti-film", in which various vignettes with no beginning are played out with no end either, but I can't but feel that this sort of "repeated slices of life" is, like Waiting for Godot, impenetrable to me. I hope it makes more sense to other viewers -- and apparently it does so, since other ratings on here are quite high.

So, as I said at the outset, I feel dumb -- never a pleasant experience.

One last point: the usual IMDB question "Does this review contain spoilers" made me laugh this time. In order for a review to contain spoilers, something actually has to happen in film that is exposed in the review. I don't believe that is possible for a film in which I have difficulty figuring out if anything of note actually happens.