Directed by:
Paul W.S. AndersonCinematography:
Glen MacPhersonComposer:
Paul HaslingerCast:
Logan Lerman, Matthew Macfadyen, Ray Stevenson, Milla Jovovich, Luke Evans, Mads Mikkelsen, Christoph Waltz, Gabriella Wilde, Orlando Bloom, Juno Temple (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
Based on Alexandre Dumas’ classic novel comes a big-screen action adventure update of the Three Musketeers, conceived and shot in state-of-the-art 3D. They are known as Porthos, Athos, and Aramis - three elite warriors who serve the King of France as his best Musketeers. After discovering an evil conspiracy to overthrow the King, the Musketeers come across a young, aspiring hero - D’Artagnan - and take him under their wing. Together, the four embark on a dangerous mission to foil the plot that not only threatens the Crown, but the future of Europe itself. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (27)
Reviews (9)
A little more sophisticated Uwe Boll, which unfortunately doesn't change the fact that a grave robber like Paul W.S. Anderson should never have come close to such a substance. Moreover, this mixture of clumsy borrowings of pirate playfulness and Ritchie cunning is completely walled off by the director's inability to come up with anything stylishly consistent. Some of the shots of Milla Jovovich suggest that Paul is probably henpecked at home. I understand that it's nice to show how his wife is still the same thunderous female at a more advanced age, but unfortunately Anderson proves that he, too, is still the same dumbass at his age. Two just for Mads, who (again) has no eye and is demonic (again).
()
Unlike most other users, I actually quite liked the 1993 version. If nothing else, it had quality action and a top-notch cast. But that’s the core of the problem, that version was a grandiose and high-budget production that had great ambitions but ultimately failed, as it did not meet the expectations of die-hard fans of the book and previous films. This current version has no ambitions, other than entertain, and the audience, for sure this time, did not expect anything at all – logically, they could not have been disappointed. If we truly look at it objectively, it is unbelievably off the mark compared to the source material. It is evident that the director disregarded all previous adaptations and made this one his own way. It is funny, the actors are good, and it doesn't lack traditional European action flair (fast-paced scenes, cuts), as well as a few adorable moments. I couldn't neglect the excellent Mads Mikkelsen, who always gives a worthwhile performance no matter the role. In terms of entertainment, it meets the standard, but in terms of art or any other film-making value, it falls 20 thousand leagues below par.
()
In his modern interpretation, "Paul W. S. Anderson honors the realities of the story and intends his modern rendition to approach the narrative quality of the original literary work." I laughed again at the official distributor text. I will admit, though, that these Three Musketeers are better the second time around than the first time. The second time around, I knew what to expect - unprecedented, but quite entertaining stupidity with airship fights, action scenes that beat anything from Anderson's Resident Evil, likable heroes and beautiful cleavage... namely women. Why not?
()
Paul W.S. Anderson refuses to grow up. Again on a small playing field (mainly Versailles and the Tower of London), with banal rules and a budget of tens of millions, he plays with a handful of action figures, each of which can be described with a single word (tough, novice, beauty…). The games and the playing thereof are constantly referred to directly in the film. The historical entrée is reminiscent of a board game, slightly larger soldier pieces fill the study of the cardinal (an again underused Waltz), whose favourite pastime is chess (the rooftop action scene with My Lady also takes place on chess-board tiles). The inconsistent structure of The Three Musketeers brings to mind a series of gradually more difficult missions that the protagonists have to accomplish by means of their own abilities (those who have played Commandos, for example, will know what’s going on before the London “level”). ___ The whole excessively dumbed-down plot, which after a moment's thought (which of course the characters don't bother with) could be resolved by counterfeiting a certain diamond necklace, is set in a reimagined version of the 17th century with airships, flamethrowers and other nonsense that makes a lot of noise and makes killing easier. The villains fall to the ground without any hesitation, like heads during the French revolution without spurting a drop of blood. Only during the fight between D'Artagnan and Rochefort do we see a few drops, probably so that we will fear for the well-being of the unlikable main protagonist. Based on his age and his struggle to get into the world of adults, it’s clear who the filmmakers’ target group is. Just like the makers of naïve action movies in the 1980s, they’re targeting young men who are looking for adult role models. The Three Musketeers is naïve already, but with one obvious change in the behaviour of the “apprentice”. The shift from a young protagonist who looks up to his more experienced role models with respect to a cheeky brat who despises authority (unfortunately) very aptly reflects the current arrogance of the young toward their elders. ___ The whole world of modern-day musketeers is adapted to gamers, usually pubescent geeks, as they are stereotypically perceived, i.e. as people who enjoy dumb, vulgar jokes and are grateful for any sight of a bare female limb. Here the titillating view of a lady’s leg, there a joke about the king’s effeminate behaviour, or the great need of a feathered friend. (Poetic license aside, a bird shits. Twice.) For adults, there are just absolutely hollow speeches about heroic deeds that must be performed. ___ After the action-packed prologue, the film nonsensically starts anew – it is necessary for everyone to regroup – of course with an interesting state of affairs when the need for heroes is revitalised (like in the recent Bond movies). But the screenwriters don’t offer anything more substantial than this hint, which also applies to the insinuated impossibility of trusting the powerful, before whom the protagonists bow their heads in the end anyway. Today there are so many possibilities of how to handle these four mythical characters...at least the gentlemen could have taken some inspiration from Sherlock. ___ Given the transparency of each of the intriguers’ intentions, the repetition of information is irksome. The film absolutely fails dramaturgically; the ending – when, instead of the expected grandiose action-packed climax (oh, that’s already been done?), we are given a feel-good dance number – seems like a fart in a bottle, to use the words of one of the characters. ___ Despite everything I’ve written here, I was entertained by The Three Musketeers. Less so than by Death Race, when Anderson didn’t have to take the age of viewers into account, but I was entertained. For the whole two hours. Thanks to the full use of the space (instead of excessive use of editing), the action scenes are clear and don’t assault the eyes with the same stylistic exhaustion as the dialogue scenes (during which the cameraman doesn’t know how to rotate around the characters and not repeat himself, so he repeats himself), the fight combos with Milla dressed in period costumes are irresistible and the thematically appropriate song under the closing credits (“When We Were Young” by Take That) was also pleasing. Perhaps I fit the stereotypical image of a gamer after all. 55%
()
(less)
(more)
The Three Musketeers is a visually beautiful and rich spectacle in which lovers of eye-candy will find their own. In terms of story and acting, however, it is pure average. I don't exactly do a double take on the pompous and arrogant Musketeer talk, of which there was a serious abundance. Of the actors, I was most impressed by the great Christoph Waltz as Cardinal Richelieu and the funniest character was Planchet.
()
Ads