Add a Review

  • The three musketeers, and by god am I disappointed. I mean don't get me wrong I excepted a simple story with typical elements, nice fight scenes and a great cast that can act great. Except for the actually really cool looking fights I didn't get anything, the cast is great but the dialogs and script are so horrible even Christoph Waltz couldn't save them. The story is all over the place, you don't get to know any of the musketeers, or barely a character at all and the biggest problem: A movie doesn't have to be realistic for me but it has to make sense in his own universe of the movie (like Matrix its not realistic but logical). The three musketeers plays with the rules of physics, logic and sense of a human being like they were beanbags. Oh and surprise surprise: 3D is useless, but thats nothing new tell me a movie that really had to have 3D except for avatar or maybe tron.

    Movie with a simple plot fine , one that makes no sense at all, you better don't count on my vote.

    So if you can enjoy a pointless excuse of a story for some nice swordplay, have fun.
  • "After failing in a scheme to steal Leonardo Da Vinci's airship blueprints, the Musketeers..."

    Seriously, the writer of "Predators" and the director of "Resident Evil" decided that Alexander Dumas masterpiece was not good enough... so they decided to add "Leonardo Da Vinci's airship" and make some other "improvements" on this horrid joke of a movie. I stopped watching when I saw Countess D'Winter sword-fighting and spinning on the wire rig. I wondered how long before the zombies would show up.

    As a lover of literature, I can't stand those Hollywood adaptations. Like when someone decided to cast Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes and also ignored that the detective from Baker Street never before touched a firearm and sent the most brilliant detective ever imagined on a shooting spree around London.

    Anyway, it isn't hard to understand why this $75,000,000 piece of garbage flopped in the box office. This shows that the public is not as stupid as we may think. Vox populi, vox Dei.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First of all I ought to note that I did not expect much of this film - and yet was left completely underwhelmed.

    There are some major issues regarding this film which I would like to address, they are the reason for my extraordinarily low ranking, which would have been even lower if I had not thought it disrespectful to those actors who did their job very well (against all odds).

    One may argue that screen adaptations require some changes to be made to the original material, and I wholeheartedly agree, but the changes made to this particular adaption are so fundamental they might as well not have bothered to call it „The Three Musketeers". There is as good as nothing left of the original plot in this movie, and what is left of it is changed beyond recognition. I did expect it to be more action laden than ultimately necessary, I expected it to deviate from the original plot, but nothing could possibly have prepared me for this shipwreck of a film.

    One might think that while a film shouldn't be required to follow the book's plot word by word to qualify for bearing the title of a famous novel - one should be able to tell it is supposed to be based on said novel, right? Apparently not. Apart from the title and the the names of the characters, there is but little that would betray it to be even roughly based on Dumas' novel. Buckingham is turned from lover to evil Lord, and Queen Anne into a blameless little lamb who fell prey to the Cardinal's machinations. No such thing as the fleur-de-lis is even mentioned. Constance doesn't only not die, she isn't even threatened by Milady. And that's just a selection.

    One might be led to think it was deliberately conceived as a parody of remakes. After all, it has all the ingredients – a butchered plot, characters with any debt taken out of them (despite the fact that if given the chance, most actors would have delivered an outstanding performance, but the time usually assigned to character development is devoured by „sexy" scenes featuring Milla Jovovich – who herself is a whole other problem), references to everything from the Matrix to Mission Impossible, goodness – it even has airships.

    Airships. Not one, not two, but an entire armada of airships. I understand that Rocheford's eye patch is tempting, but they might as well have put a parrot on his shoulder, it would not have managed to make it appear any more ridiculous. I was surprised they did not venture to release an air Kraken.

    If this film had had less Milla Jovovich, no airships and if anyone had bothered to actually read "The Three Musketeers" beforehand, it might have been decent - and had they fixed some minor problems (like the annoyingly clean costumes and settings), it may even have been great. It certainly had the potential. It's a pity it nuked the fridge... or should I say - flew the airship?
  • I actually liked this movie. I've seen many musketeer movies through the years and this one wasn't the best one in my opinion but it was certainly not the worst either. It has a lot of adventure and cool scenes with good special effects.

    I did not expect to see Milla Jovovich in a movie like this but she really pulled it off. And it was pretty nice seeing Orlando Bloom playing a villain for a change, I've had the feeling that he always plays the a character with same qualities in almost every movie (Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Kingdom of Heaven etc).

    This movie is much more adventurous and wild than the '93 version and in my opinion these two can't really be compared because they are made for different audiences. All in all this is a great movie to watch together with your friends.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Before I start writing down my impressions of this movie, I have to say that "The Three Musketeers" is one of my all-time favourite books. When I heard that a new Three Musketeers film was going to be released, I was really excited - all the more when I saw pictures of the beautiful locations in Bavaria and read that Christoph Waltz ("Inglorious Basterds") would play my favourite character Richelieu. When I saw the trailer though, I was shocked: Matrix style bullet evasion? A Ninja diver? And... zeppelin air ships? WTF? I was sure Dumas was rotating in his grave over this mutilation done to his work! Really... I don't think a brilliant story like The Three Musketeers needs air ships in order to be exciting.

    Despite my frustration about the trailer, I decided to go to the cinema and I have to say, it was certainly not a total waste of time and money. First of all, the costumes and locations were extremely enjoyable. I watched the movie in 2D, but viewers will surely appreciate the 3D version. There are some nice effects like a bird's view onto a painted map of France.

    Most of the actors also did a great job, especially Christoph Waltz. He was amazing, just like I had always imagined Richelieu: this cool composure he has when something is not going according to his plans, but you can see how his brilliant brain is working on something new already. I also liked his interaction with the Louis XIII. The King was portrayed in a very exaggerated manner (clueless about politics, only interested in fashion and very childish), but this ironic exaggeration of his character created a lot of fun. Orlando Bloom was also great as Buckingham. You could see how he was enjoying himself in the role of the classy, spoiled and evil British ambassador. Logan Lerman as d'Artagnan surprised me positively. I thought he was just another boyish actor teenage girls will fall in love with. But he made a really good d'Artagnan and was able to show off his fencing abilities. Apparently all the fencing choreographies were done without the help of ropes or stuntmen - Respect! The final duel between Rochefort and d'Artagnan on the roof of Notre Dame was epic. It's a pity there wasn't more sword fighting instead of zeppelins. The actors of Athos, Porthos and Aramis also did a pretty good job, but had too little screen time and thus ended up as flat characters with only one trait of character each (Athos = the disillusioned drunkard, who has lost his love, Porthos = the vain daredevil, Aramis = the religious ladies' man). The musketeers as the title heroes really should be at the centre of the plot, but in this movie Milady and Buckingham got much more attention.

    Too much attention in the case of Milady. First of all, Milla Jovovich is not a good actress. Neither is she especially sexy, as the movie constantly tries to suggest. But I guess these factors don't play much of a role if you are married to the director... Secondly, I've always hated all these historical novels or films where "emancipated" women do stuff they just wouldn't have done in the century the plot is set in. And no, I'm pretty sure a woman of the 17th century would not have stripped on the roof of the palace and bungee jumped down. And no, she would not be able to win a sword fight against several Cardinal's Guards. And no group of three 17th century soldiers would have allowed a woman (in a huge gown not made for running) to draw the gunfire onto herself, so that they can go safe after she has activated the trap… There were more anachronisms like that, the most obvious one being the air ships, but I won't even start ranting about them. The second most annoying anachronism was the portrayal of Rochefort: At the beginning, d'Artagnan challenges him to a duel, but Rochefort just shoots him before he can draw his sword. Outrageous for a 17th century nobleman! If there is one important ingredient you mustn't forget in a cloak-and-sword-film, it's the code of honour: you fight your enemy, but you're always noble and fair. The movie almost completely lacked this element. Also, why the heck does a Musketeer movie need a "Mission Impossible" scene with Milady climbing though a network of invisible wires? And why can d'Artagnan, after just one audience, stroll through the palace gardens with the King? Why does Buckingham accuse the King of wearing "retro style"? – Even the soundtrack was anachronistic sometimes, when it suddenly changed from classical Hans-Zimmer-style to Pulp-Fiction-style – very irritating!

    But the anachronisms are not the only logical flaws in the movie: How did the French build an air ship in one week? (How do they fly and how are they steered anyway?) Why would a royal ship use a skeleton as a figurehead? (Answer: so that you get the Pirates of the Caribbean style) Why do the musketeers first try to get into the tower vault in order to get the diamonds, but then Athos suddenly knows that the diamonds won't be there anyway, but with Milady? How does Milady survive a fall of like 100 metres?

    Well, perhaps you should just switch off the logical part of your brain, when you go to see this movie! All in all, I had great fun watching it together with some friends. In the end it was better than I feared after seeing the trailers, but the sad thing is: it was worse than it could have been! All the ingredients for a great historical movie were there: excellent actors, beautiful locations and one of the best novels ever written as the basis! However, they just messed around too much with that great novel. You just can't improve a perfect story (not even with air ships), you can only make it worse.
  • markoffj16 October 2011
    I actually expected this movie to be bad based on the previews, and after the first 5 minutes, which were kind of entertaining, I thought "maybe this won't be so bad". But every attempt at humor is completely dry, and the story is told in the worst way possible. Aside from the opening scene, everything added to the story in an attempt to make it different from the standard Three Musketeer plot is completely lame. And even Orlando Bloom acted like a rookie! I don't know how on earth this managed to get financed. If you want some real entertainment, watch the 1993 version, in which Tim Curry is the best evil Cardinal ever!
  • Silly movie this one but not boring. It cost $75M and it shows. There are huge problems though.

    First of all we deal with a classic here, so it has a legacy that must be respected. In this version, every character is presented as a buffoon. The acting, the deliverance...

    Leonardo da Vinci, we learn, has drawn up plans for a flying "war machine," a combination of dirigible and seafaring galleon. The plot and the dialogs are full of hot air like the war machine. The director is obviously thought that these were minor issues!

    The action is dominated by green-screen and Matrix-like effects.

    Overall: Not boring if you are 9 y.o. but a disgrace nevertheless...
  • There is a saying that goes by the words "Don't fix it if it ain't broke". While there has been umpteen re-makes of the classic novel by Alexandre Dumas, this latest adaptation is not one that Dumas would be proud of. Rather, this film is a desecration of fine prose and the resting place of Dumas himself. The logic defying script expects the viewer to suspend reality with ships that fire cannons while sailing through the air, Ninja styled breach and entry, a "Mission Impossible" styled heist and exotic weaponry, all within the confines of what was supposed to be the renaissance period of 17th century France.

    I have found this movie mostly disappointing, starting with the totally unnecessary satire in the script. It is one thing to inject a little comedy, but where is the need to make a parody of one the most widely translated works of literature? Played by Logan Lerman, D'Artagnan sets out to become a musketeer and arrives in Paris to find the famed trio Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Aramis (Luke Evans) and Porthos (Ray Stevenson) disbanded and de-commissioned by Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz). After a bravado skirmish with the Cardinal's guards, the young but inexperienced King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox) reinstates Athos, Aramis and Porthos to their former rank and even has D'Artagnan join them for good measure. The awesome foursome then discovers the Cardinal's deadly plot to overthrow the King. By employing Athos's former lover the beautiful but deadly assassin M'lady De Winter (Milla Jovovich), the Cardinal fabricates infidelity between the Queen (Juno Temple) and England's Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). By doing so, the devious cardinal plots to unleash war on the European Continent, and in the process plans to dispose the King and Queen of France, while acquiring the throne of France for himself. It is now up to the (four) musketeers to prevent France and England from plunging into war by stopping M'lady De Winter from executing the Cardinals evil plan.

    With a budget of US$ 100 million, Alexandre Dumas' complex plot is simplified for this movie but hugely amplified with visual effects and 3 D. The effects are literally blown out of proportion while 3 D does not appear to have served its purpose. In comparison, the 1993 title still holds its ground with a lowly budget of US$17 million. The very obvious difference is in the screenplay. In adapting for film, both versions have strayed from the book, but there is still a lot of focus on the story in the 1993 version. With this 2011 remake, director and co-producer Paul .W. S. Anderson has unwisely sacrificed an engaging and all time favorite work of fiction for a very expensive piece of cannon fodder. There is a legend behind the story of the three musketeers and it stands for valor and honor, the protection of king and country and the defense of justice by fighting corruption. Sadly, none of this is even remotely brought to light in Anderson's version. Having previously worked with Milla Jovovich on the zombie infested "Resident Evil" franchise, Anderson sticks to his guns with flamboyant action and goes to the extent of throwing in blades, explosives, zeppelins and yes, fancy fencing . To an extent, creativity in adapting for the screen is always appreciated. However, by overdoing it Anderson has paid a very heavy price as he has not only overlooked core elements of the story, he has also not given due detail to any of the characters. Who were the three musketeers? What made them famous? Why have they pledged alliance to a young and weak King? Regrettably, Andrew Davies and Alex Litvak's screenplay does not justify a franchise re-boot by avoiding early origins of the musketeers and the trio's prominence in the French Monarchy.

    For a period piece set in the 17th century, costumes, props and sets seem to be convincing. But what do I know; I haven't been alive for the last 400 years. Although Anderson scores in this area, he fails again with the totally uninspired acting. Lerman plays a hot-headed D'Artagnan, but not with the same passion as portrayed by actors before him. As the titled musketeers, I just could not feel that patriotic vibe from Macfadyen, Evans and Stevenson. As Buckingham, Bloom oozes with cool and makes a grand entrance but his screen time is limited, so don't expect too much swashbuckling as his roles in "Pirates of the Caribbean". Jovovich is the same as ever, only here she does not have zombies to kill. My biggest disappointment is the underused Christoph Waltz. We have seen before how fearsome a villain he can be as the conniving and scheming Col. Landa in Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds". Yet somehow Waltz fails to maintain that same intensity. It becomes all the more disappointing because the Cardinal is supposedly a central yet treacherous character, but in this film he doesn't appear to be so. Perhaps it all boils down to the script again although I was expecting more from Waltz in comparison to the rest of the actors, as he could have actually been the film's saving grace.

    At the end of it all, this latest adaptation will not be worth remembering and will go down as a half-baked attempt at remaking a movie that has been made too many times. In my book, the 1993 version still rules!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I feel a little sorry to be so critical of this movie, because I thought some of the performances were fine, especially Matthew McFadyen and Ray Stevenson. Alas, Logan Lerman and Milla Jovovich were rather unconvincing in their roles, sucking to varying degrees. While one or two of the 3D scenes worked very well, notably the duel on the top of Notre Dame, the 3D was at its most effective for the credits and some of the other on-screen text. While it did add to the movie, it did not add quite enough to compensate for the other downsides. In the end, the irony is that the movie used 3D technology to depict two dimensional characters.

    Perhaps the best parts of the movie were the opening prologue and the early scenes in Paris; thereafter it was all downhill, with the hill getting steeper as the movie progressed. It was apparent that the scriptwriters had either read the book or seen some earlier Musketeer movies, but equally apparent that they had either not understood the story or had decided they knew better than Dumas. Making Buckingham the villain was very ill-judged, and they should have made better use of the Cardinal (and Waltz). Most of this I could have lived with, but what brought the whole edifice crashing down was the nonsensical video-game sequences, featuring ridiculous flying ships that flouted most of the laws of physics (Newtonian and Einsteinian). I think these annoyed me more than the horrendous CGI in the last Indiana Jones movie.

    The really frustrating thing is that this could have been an entertaining film; it looked great and had a sound cast. It seemed to me that the director may either have been influenced by childhood over-exposure to the Teletubbies, or that the need to make use of 3D forced the story in a truly stupid direction. I suspect the latter is closer to the truth, and this is what killed 3D last time, i.e. letting the technology drive the script in increasingly bizarre directions.

    It would be easier to forgive some of the movie's faults were its crime not so great, i.e. trashing one of the all-time classic adventure stories!
  • Lavish scenarios , spectacular action , court intrigue and exciting swordplay . Last version based on Alexandre Dumas' classic yarn of intrigue at the 17th century French court . Entertaining and fun version based on the classic Dumas novel with spectacular swordplay in nifty style , this is a modern version of the classic Dumas novel set in 17th Century France . Alexandre Dumas's source for his novel was a book by 19th-century writer Courtils de Sandraz, which was purporting to be D'Artagnan's biography ; the Musketeers were actually real people, not fictional characters created by Dumas . Producer and director Paul W.S. Anderson presents Dumas' exciting story of love and adventure , ¨The three musketeers¨ including a lot of computer especial effects , anachronisms and overwhelming aerial scenes . For this plenty FX rendition is adapted in the greatest splendor , the complete romance , the historical characters, the full novel by Alexandre Dumas though including important changes . It is packed with comedy , derring-do , intrigue , a love story , action , drama and moving swordplay . An awesome casting and big-budgeted production shot in Bavarian Studios and location make for a fairly amusement swashbuckler . This is the recent recounting of the Dumas's novel with a fine cast headed by handsome Logan Lerman as hot-headed D'Artagnan in a brave role as a young and handsome soldier of fortune , a dashing , audacious lover and nimble athlete . They must defeat a beautiful double agent and her villainous employer from seizing the French throne and engulfing Europe in war. At the beginning of the movie, the map of Europe shows several states and kingdoms of that era . This delightful adaptation based on Alexandre Dumas classic novel starts with the youngster D'Artagnan who arrives in Paris to find Mister Treville , chief of Musketeers. But he meets with three two-fisted Musketeers , rollicking adventurers , fighting to live and living to love . DÁrtagnan to be aware they are Musketeers and is invited to unite them in their objective to struggle against guards of Cardinal Richelieu well performed by Christopher Waltz and the astute Milady De Winter who is lovely as a jewel, deadly as a dagger the wickedest woman in all Christendom . Meanwhile, D'Artagnan falls in love with a gorgeous young , Constance , Gabriella Wilde , she is a golden-haired beauty entangled in a web of treachery and intrigue. Furthermore , there is developed an intrigue between Luis XIII : Freddie Fox , Queen Anne of Austria : Juno Temple , dazzling as her gilded palace for her, men dared a thousand perils , and Duke of Buckingham , Orlando Bloom ; and of course the nasty Richelieu , as evil as ever . The musketeers join forces for royal vengeance with the shout : ¨One for all and all for one¨. Then , the musketeers whose friendship has become a legend to stir the hearts of men and shouting their slogan set out to help the Queen . Straightforward as well as gallant D'Artagnan and the three musketeers scheme a plan to save her , clashing against a malicious Richelieu .

    It's a nice rendition from the immortal novel with pretty budget and breathtaking scenarios . The picture contains rousing action , intrigue , romantic adventure , romance , treachery , mayhem and a lot of fence . Amusing swashbuckling with lavish production , glamorous gowns and luxurious sets . Furthermore , a vein of humour is evident here , though sometimes falling flat . For this movie itself , though , energetic and frantic are the best adjectives you could think of to describe its attraction . Charming but very young and short Logan Lerman , he bounds and leaps , fights , hits and run . Lerman executes athletic feats , moving sword-play and spectacular acrobatics , Logan performed most of the stunts in his films himself . He is accompanied by a good cast as Matthew MacFadden , Luke Evans , Ray Stevenson , Til Schweiger . Furthermore , special mention to Mads Mikkelsen , playing Rochefort, in this movie he wears an eye-patch over the very same left eye that his Le Chiffre character wept blood in Casino Royale (2006).

    Adequate and colorful cinematography by Glen MacPherson stunningly showed on the splendorous images being filmed in Munich and German palaces such as Residenz in Würzburg, Lower Franconia, Bavaria . Thrilling as well as evocative musical score by Paul Haslinger , the dance music near the end is appropriate for the time period . Glamorous production design is well reflected on the luxurious interiors and exteriors stunningly filmed . Impressive sets , though many of them made by computer generator , the so called "Ring of fire" crows nest with its 31 cannons was built as a fully working version out of a mass of wood in only fourteen days by a big German company , it is on display in the Babelsberg movie studio film park. The motion picture was professionally realized by Paul W.S. Anderson . This cool filmmaker provided visual style , comedy , fencing , drama , clangorous action in equal proportions .

    This classy story is subsequently remade on several versions ,as the MGM classic version in musical style by George Sidney with Gene Kelly , Paul Lukas , Gig Young , Vincent Price , Frank Morgan and Lana Turner as Milady ; 1973 amusing version by Richard Lester with Michael York, Oliver Reed and Raquel Welch ; 1993 modern adaptation by Stephen Herek with Charlie Sheen , Kiefer Sutherland, Oliver Platt and Chris O'Donnell, and 2001 rendition by Peter Hyams with Justin Chambers, Mena Suvari and Tim Roth , among others. ¨The three Musketeers¨ is an outstanding and entertaining adaptation of the classy that will appeal to the costumer genre buffs and it results to be acceptable adaptation with big budget based on the classic
  • It would have been nice if this Mila Jovavich vehicle had anything remotely to do with the original Dumas masterpiece, but alas, it seems too much to ask of Hollywood's dread cash hounds, who, like some sort of anti-Jesus, can magically transform the finest of wine into sh*t.

    I hope the angry ghost of Dumas defecates in their mouths as they sleep for foisting this god awful mess upon us. The only reason it merited any stars is because Ms. Jovavich is stunning, and the special effects were pretty. These were barely enough to rescue my PC from death by stomping after watching about half of this outrage.

    If you find yourself about to watch - save yourself!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First off I want to start by saying that i have never posted a review on IMDb before as no movie how bad it is has compelled me to do so. But recently these so called Hollywood blockbusters have left me with no choice. So lets come to this movie now. First off who did the casting for this movie and who wrote the script if you can call it a script. I guess the plan in the boardroom was lets take good actors like Chris Waltz, Mads Mikkelson, Ray Stevenson and even Luke Evans. All these actors except Luke Evans I love dearly. But in this movie all the director and producer did was under-use the best actors in the movie and instead give all the screen time to Mila and Logan. I personally enjoy watching Mila in Resident Evil series but here she was just unnecessary. And this kid Logan, who calls him an actor, i am furious that he got paid to do this role so poorly. I am a business grad so I work better in explaining things in points. So i will just make a list of what I felt was wrong with this movie; here it goes: The three musketeers, um mm I mean the four musketeers I guess -

    1) Lets teach all the teenage kids to fight and join some sort of army or gang. Also send them to the big city to pick fights with anyone who insults their horse. There is no honour in doing anything else but killing another human being. I guess being a scholar, inventor and all that is just a waste, be a killer thats where all the glory and Honor is.

    2) Lets hire a bunch of exceptional actors and under-use them through the whole movie and just use their faces on the posters to sell the movie.

    3) A 20 year old kid who is trained by his father can beat down 20 cardinal guards all by himself while the brave three musketeers watch and laugh in surprise.

    4) If you kill the cardinal guards in the streets of France, then the public cheers and rejoices for you and calls you a hero openly.

    5) Lets use Da Vinci's name for the sake of scientific inventions and get away with inventing a flying elephant for crying out loud.

    6) lets offer no character development in any dimension but still make the movie in 3 dimension for the people to enjoy.

    7) Remember if a girl kisses you, then you must go to England, steal the Diamonds, bring them back to France all in 5 days. I suppose water ships used to sail really fast during those times.

    8) If you are the villain and you have to stop the hero from bringing the diamonds back to France, then do not shoot the airship down and destroy the evidence but instead offer them a trade for the captive girl.

    9) Lets get the heroes who have seen an airship for the first time in their lives fly an airship later on in the movie with no real training what so ever.

    10) Lets get Mila to kill 5-6 skilled guards in a sword fight and pull off a heist but yet still accept defeat in front of 4 musketeers because she is such a petite woman with no strength.

    11) Lets throw Mila from the airship thousands of miles down to ocean and still have her survive the ordeal because first you cant kill Mila no matter what and second because if you fall from the height of thousand miles into water, it does not hurt as water breaks your fall.

    I can continue on with many other rants about the movie but I will stop here. My only request is to Mr. Mikkelson and Christopher Waltz is that I know it takes money to pay the bills but please do read the script before you actually sign a movie. I suggest everyone who reads this review to avoid this movie completely. Trust me you wont miss much
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The version of the film I love the most is with Charlie Sheen and so when my other half put this on I wasn't expecting much.

    It doesn't have the comedy aspect that I thought it would have but that doesn't matter to me. The bits of comedy that were there, such as the ticket giving for a horse dumping in the street was subtle but good. I found that funny, even though most people probably don't.

    The visual aspects were great. Steampunk is very big in fashion at the moment and has been for the past couple of years or so, so the flying ship and some of the outfits fit very well with this theme.

    Overall I thought it was an enjoyable film and would watch it again.
  • loufalce11 October 2011
    Warning: Spoilers
    In the newest version of this often made film, the title three have fallen on hard times, but when a plot is uncovered to plunge France and England into war, they get back together to do their patriotic duty. Bearing absolutely no relation to the Dumas novel {except for the names of the characters} this new version seems to have been made for contemporary audiences, and combines elements of "Matrix"' "Pirates of the Caribbean", "James Bond films, Samurai films and even throws in a good deal of steampunk gadgets and weapons. The story has something to do with a plan for Cardinal Richilieu to seize power and set himself up as a dictator. The cast is OK,with Orlando Bloom as the evil Buckingham, Mila Jojovich as a deadly assassin, and Christof Walz as Richileiu. The German locations could easily pass for early 17 th century France and are quite beautiful.There are fine swordfights, improvised weapon systems, secret passageways,a killing chamber, booby traps, an unbelievable swordfight duel on the roof of Notre Dame cathedral and stolen plans from Leonardo Da Vinci's secret vault for aeriel war machines. These are a combination of zeppelins and sail propelled galleons with at least three decks of cannons and flamethrowers! Even if they are at least 200 years ahead of their time, they are magnificent in design . Their battle over Paris is truly spectacular. Film also features many funny and quite quotable one liners. The point of it is that this was designed to be a fun film and if you, the viewer "get it" it will be exactly that. I've never seen an Andreson film, but this one was a blast. Its all non stop action with a keen sense of humor and some spectacular set pieces all in eye popping 3D.Definitely not your 8th grade Dumas book report that you probably faked by reading a "Classic Illustrated" comic version or "Cliff Notes", but its not supposed to be. Just go see it, OK?
  • When I discovered that the Three Musketeers film was being made by P.W.S. Anderson I was very surprised. It's one of those classic stories that are difficult to change into brainless action-adventure movie without losing the heart and style. But I was very eager to see what Anderson would do with the material provided by the scriptwriter. I expected great action movie, with massive and beautiful sets, wonderful music and well choreographed fight scenes. And the movie is exactly what I expected it to be.

    I don't care whether the plot followers the book or not - I go to the cinema to have a great fun, and great fun I had indeed. It is really done with style but Anderson's haters will never like any of his movies.
  • 'The Three Musketeers'was a film that was clearly a waste of my valuable time. The main reason I gave it a 5 was because not much happened but also I didn't fall asleep or leave the room.It wasn't the worst time waster I've seen so any ratings less than 4 out of 10 wouldn't be correct in my opinion but neither would any ratings over 6 out of 10.

    The majority of the film was just talking full stop. The best scene was near the beginning- it was a fight scene between many people. Rather unusually,this film,being the three musketeers,had hardly any action scenes and the storyline was hard to get,extremely boring and SO plain.

    Basically, I would recommend not to watch this film or even rent it because you may as well get an original 'The Three Musketeers' film.It is better than 'The last airbender',though, which is another adventure film.
  • Paul W.S. Anderson's reboot of the Three Musketeers is one of those movies you should see with one expectation only: to be entertained without straining your braincells.

    It is an enjoyable adventure movie that never takes itself too serious, reminiscent of the first Pirates of the Caribbean film.

    The cast members seem to have enjoyed their parts as they display a mellow playfulness, with Orlando Bloom being the exception as he seems a little over-strained in his role as a bad guy. But even his helpless overacting can be overlooked in a movie that seems to be very self-aware about it's ultimate goal - to deliver two hours of mindless entertainment.

    Logan Lerman should be positively mentioned, because once you get over his haircut, he delivers a nice performance as the cocky, young hot-shot D'Artagnan, with a good sense of timing for his (mostly cheesy) onliners and a great agility in the fighting sequences.

    I thoroughly enjoyed this movie in 3D and look forward to a sequel. Recommended to anyone who appreciates silly entertainment with great visuals from time to time. See it in the cinema!
  • I was actually going through an IMDb list and saw the rating of this movie as 5.8 so I felt the urge to write a review. I read some comments and it seems there was witch hunt for this nice and entertaining movie. It is not the best movie of 2011 but come on, it is much better than a lot of movies that have way higher ratings. First of all, the action is pretty good. The acting is very well done and the CGI is used professionally. This is a modern approach to the classic three musketeers and I enjoyed it a lot. From my point of view, a remake needs to add some stuff to the original movie and this movie made it successfully.
  • Yet another adaptation of the Alexandre Dumas classic Three Muskateers, however this tale came with way too much modernization for my taste. Flying battle ships, automatic cannon launchers, and tricked out vaults were just a few of the technological feats that were only a necessity because the story needed something more to make anyone care long enough to stay in their seat the full running time. I felt that from the trailer there was a desire to make this a larger than life visual extravaganza, with the wide and aerial views of the French and English landscapes, along with the huge explosions the viewer was supposed to be amazed. The only amazing thing that I found was that the only way to remember that we were experiencing a story in Paris, France is that the characters kept mentioning it, otherwise with all the varying accents it was easy to forget where the story was taking place, I don't recall one person speaking with a French accent or even interjecting a bit of French for some authenticity, not once. And don't even get me started on the ridiculously constructed chance meeting of D'artangnan (Logan Lerman) and the Muskateers. I have to admit that I found The Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) to be delightful, he was a balanced mix of charm and cunning. But what the heck was going on with King Louis the XIII (Freddie Fox), a fashionisto? No one seemed to be immune to the whiles of MiLady de Winter (Milla Jovavich) and you just get the feeling that she is the only woman in the world with an adventurous side, she was everywhere. All I could think of while watching this film was, this is the stupidest Three Muskateers story ever. I love movies, I love action in movies, I love classic tales, and I love fashion in any context, but I did not love this film dare say I did not much like it, it should have stuck with a character driven tale of heroism, side stepping the over the top presentation and preoccupation with fashion. My preference is the classic take on the story, the cleverness and quick wit of the Muskateers, their exceptional fencing ability and their keen sense of loyalty to the thrown as they work to mentor D'artangnan has always been enough. Don't bastardize a classic, make your film and call it Swashbuckling or something else. The story did not require 3-D, and it did not require my presence in the movie theater. I give it a red light.
  • Went to see this movie, only because I have seen the numerous previous ones. I wasn't expecting much and got exactly what I expected... The makers have totally disregarded the fact this story is set at a "time and history" and have gone high tech including ridiculous CG affects. We have flying machines machines, multi-firing cannons, and all with explosions that are totally unbelievable for the "period in history" the story is set in... Other than that, the acting is elementary.

    Have an hankering for The Three Musketeers, rent the 1993 version - It abuses the story enough and is watchable!

    Skip this one!
  • I really thought that Twilight 4 would be the worst movie of the year but after seeing this one I don't think movies can get any worse. This movie proves that God exists only for their is no way that the worst screenplay and the worst acting got together and made this movie by coincidence, there had to be divine help.

    Not only does this movie not even remotely follow the book or any other movie it tries to spice up the failure of a movie that it is by having special effects that are so ridiculous they would make you laugh if you weren't in pain from realizing you paid to see this movie.

    Overall I would rather pay forty dollars to watch a censored version of Piranha 3D then get paid to see this movie again.
  • TourettesPersonal19 October 2011
    At first glance, we all know that this will never be a great version of The Three Musketeers but with all the flying ships and the swashbucklery, we can still give it a try. The film ends up pretty fun. Even with all the silly nonsense and the modern stuff scattered in the film. The cast made it enjoyable. The 3D is surprisingly good. But in the end, it's just another blockbuster. The film also had troubles to its pacing and the writing is a bit modern. The Three Musketeers won't end up as a classic but it can be fun in some times.

    The baffle goes to the director. Paul W.S. Anderson is an unusual person to direct a film like this since he's more of a futuristic action movie guy. Adding some steampunk and plenty of slow-mos. The film didn't end up being too faithful to the original story. The director just wants to feel comfortable to his style. Modernism, Cool Devices, Hot Women, and Slow-Mo. The pacing is problematic in the second act. It shows the plan of the villains and in parts, you won't notice that it already passes another day.

    The other thing about the second act, the Musketeers are mostly absent. It shows more of the antagonists and their plans. It's like Transformers where the titular characters only appear when there's danger and mostly focuses to a kid and the villains. But here, the titular characters are not bland.

    Some of the cast made their scenes enjoyable. Logan Lerman does his thing. Not quite appreciating though. But his female fans will love it. The actors who played the three musketeers gives plenty of personality to their roles. Matthew Macfadyen is pretty cool as Athos. We don't get to see much Luke Evans but he is cunning as Aramis. Ray Stevenson is as usual, funny and had much character. In the antagonists, Christophe Waltz has many style of being a villain. Orlando Bloom looks like he's enjoying but a little threat in his little scenes. Mads Mikkelsen is the only serious villain among them. Milla Jovovich does her swagger and seductiveness but a little personality.

    The action is pretty cool. But so much slow-mos. Just like in Resident Evil Afterlife. Slow-motion to make it cool. Anderson started these excessive slow-mos in Resident Evil 4. Maybe he thought these things will affect the 3D or maybe he just wanted to be cool. It's cool enough but when the musketeers was helping D'Artagnan to fight Rochefort's army, there is one moment of this scene that looks too similar to 300. When Athos was slashing them but here there are no blood. No matter how violent they kill, you won't see a single drop. The 3D is surprisingly good. It's almost like a gimmick but this gimmick is actually good. Swords, Bombs, Pointy Objects, and other stuff.

    The production design is decent. The costumes and the setting are well made. The CGI were obviously good. The flying battleships and some CGI swords. CGI bombs. CGI background. The music score fits the whole theme but every single score repeats in every scene. The writing isn't good. Too modern. They said the S word but it's funny anyways.

    Fans of the original story will definitely be disappointed with this adaptation but if you are in for some steampunk, slow-mos, swashbuckling swordfights then try watch this. It will not remain a classic or one of the best. It's not really trying to be the best. It's just a version with futuristic elements or it could be just a 3D gimmick. The movie wasn't bad as I expected but it has those flaws that aren't easy to ignore. It just wanted to be fun. It's good to watch as an action film. As an adaptation, it's good to watch right now but someday it'll be forgotten or ignored. But really, this is fun.
  • OK... I know a lot of people on here really don't like the movie. I understand that there were things that could have been changed about it, but for the most part I really enjoyed watching the movie. I love the steampunk feel to the movie and the slow motion in the fight scenes. I will say that the girl that played Constance could have done better. She was so unemotional and flat. The Three Musketeers and D'Artagnan were great! Great fighting and great humor. I would really like to see a sequel. Lastly, the costumes were AMAZING! The dresses were so bright and colorful. The men looked GREAT! I have seen the Disney Musketeers movie and I hated the costumes from that movie. Im glad this film did such a good on the costumes.
  • It is very hard to overweight Alexandre Dumas. It is not a crime to try and fail, but to preposterously change history, murder characters, take out key elements of the story it is the closest thing to literary crime. As we can see, somebody not only did that, but succeeded to put it into a movie. That is the only success the movie had. Luckily nobody tried to change the genders of the musketeers but unfortunately the four main characters had little to do along the movie. It was much more easy to use one or two of them, because the other ones were just a waste of script. There is no might in Porthos, no mystery or wisdom in Athos, no priesthood in Aramis. The original story is downgraded to the extreme. I am a fan of the books written by Alexandre Dumas so for fans the movie starts to stink after the first minutes. That is why there is no reason to go into details about how the actors played and why the interpretation was so lame. There are some enjoyable moments but the bitter taste of insufficient imagination spoils the overall experience. My question was why they bother to take a well-known classical story, when is easier to write a new one and go with it. There is a clear trend of distorting the old stories and make them fit "panem et circenses" because most of movie industry is mediocre. The only way that trend is reversed is by treating second hand work for what it is and marl it clearly. Like this we may give in the future a chance to young viewers to enjoy real plots, good scripts and excellent movies. Unfortunately this movie is not even a classical example of failure it's just a product of consumerism, see it, throw it away and make space for the next lame one.
  • DanaL721 October 2011
    As a parent, it really irks me when movies are peppered with just enough, but unnecessary, bad language to warrant a PG-13 rating. But not this time. Those parents who will not yet let their children see PG-13, you should be saying a prayer of thanks.....seriously.

    I had very low expectations of this movie when I went and as it turns out, I was quite the optimist. The acting was silly, but to be fair, they didn't have anything to work with that could possibly have been salvageable. The movie gave silly nods to Assassin's Creed, Raider's of the Lost Ark, anything with Jackie Chan, Mission Impossible, The Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean, just to name a few.

    The airship. They built it in a week...amazing! Incredibly, these Musketeers not only intuitively knew how to fly this brand spanking new invention, they also learned how to pick up a carriage in mid-flight! Just when I swallowed this stupidity of the airship...OMG....there's another one and it's cannonball proof....they bounce right off!! And just when you think you've safely landed after plummeting off Mount Absurd, you are shoved face first into the Abyss of comes a whole armada of airships...probably cannonball proof....may as well be.

    Obviously, I hated this movie. They had a great opportunity to have it a little campy while telling a good story.

    All that being said, the kids are doing to love it. So if you take your kids with the expectation that your pleasure will be derived solely from enjoying your kids enjoying this movie....then this will be money well spent.
An error has occured. Please try again.