Movies: 18454 | TV Series: 3282 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 65882 GB
- Forgot password?
- | Register
- | Support
- | FAQ
- | Help
Download, Watch online The Three Musketeers (LQ) Movie.
| Genres: | ActionAdventureRoma |
| Starring: | Til Schweiger, Logan Lerman, Orlando Bloom, Milla Jovovich, Matthew MacFadyen, Christian Oliver, Mads Mikkelsen |
| Director(s): | Paul W.S. Anderson |
| Country: | Germany, USA, UK |
| Year: | 2011 |
| IMDB Rating: | 6 |
The hot-headed young DArtagnan along with three former legendary but now down on their luck Musketeers must unite and defeat a beautiful double agent and her villainous employer from seizing the French throne and engulfing Europe in war.
 |
The Three Musketeers (LQ) (iPod) | Resolution: 480x208 px | Total Size: 361 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Three Musketeers (LQ) (DivX) | Resolution: 720x304 px | Total Size: 1453 Mb |
|
Movie Photos: We have taken some photos of "The Three Musketeers (LQ)". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitor Reviews: (20)
Jesse Ung 16 May 2012
Fast, funny and thoroughly entertaining...
To say that this film was a masterpiece would be like saying M. NightShyamalan's The Last Airbender deserved an Oscar, but to say that Ididn't enjoy The Three Musketeers, I would be telling a lie.Long story short, a skilled teenager goes to the city to meet his alltime heroes and join them in the fight for justice. It's a plot thinnerthan Angelina Jolie's current body figure. But what it undeniably lacksin it's story telling, it more than makes up for with impressivevisuals, sweeping swashbuckling action, witty one liners and apainfully good looking male cast, Luke Evans and Orlando Bloom are niceeye candy for their hour-and a half on-screen time, performances justas good though.Fast, funny and thoroughly entertaining, go in with not too highexpectations, and you'll come away satisfied.NOTE: Watch in 3D if you can, it is definitely one of the best outthere.
fayazissak 16 May 2012
Utter trash
I found this movie to be complete and utter trash, the CGI was obvious,especially in fight scenes, the story was ludicrous, the movie itselfwas long and dull. Why does Hollywood think that they can continuallyre- invent this particular story is beyond me. Its a shame because it looked half decent from the trailer, and hassome great actors in the movie too. The Three Musketeers is a movie that you will easily forget, it willleave no long standing impression in your mind. I would love to see aversion that has a decent script and stuck more closely to the originaltext.If you are looking to pass a couple of hours and don't care what youwatch, go for it, otherwise I would advise you to spend your time morewisely!
levitak 15 May 2012
A great action movie!
There is one VERY important thing that everybody should know going intothis movie. And that's that this is not about a faithful interpretationof the books. Nor is it about some deep drama. Anybody who is expectingthis(or criticizing the movie for it) is frankly an idiot. From thebeginning to the end the movie never hides what it is. Hell it show itquite clearly in the trailers as well. It's a truly great fun packedaction movie. And that's it's essence. Fun action movie.Now for more details. First the question is the 3d worth it? Not reallyunless you have some money to spare. Is the 3d horrible. Also no. It'sdecent Nothing really worth paying additional money for but also it'snot horribly done like so many conversions.However the visuals are rather great. You have some truly beautifulscenery and some pretty damn good action scenes. Not to mention thepretty people ;) Speaking of the people the acting was very decent.Milla Jovovich shines as milady. Combined the playfulness anddeviousness with truly great ass kicking ability and some extremelywell executed abilities. Not to mention that her stunning beauty iseven more visible here. Also bonus to Gabriel Wild as Constance who isthe very picture of innocent and angelic looking The Three Musketeersare great. They have a great chemistry and yet each one manages toshine on his own.D'Artagnan does have that "little sh*t" as pointed out by severalcharacters vibe but I think mostly due to how the actor looks On thevillain side we have some great performances. From the greatperformance of the calculating Cardinal to the wonderful basterd thatis Rochefort who is truly fun as a villain who never plays fair even ifhe has all the advantages :) Orlando Bloom makes a very decent semi badguy who also shows surprising comedic talent As for the movie itself it doesn't take itself too seriously but italso doesn't fall into the idiotic and over the top vibe(yes despiteAirships)rather if has the vibe of an 90's action movie. The greataction combined with surprisingly good humor. If you like things likeDie Hard, Lethal Weapon and co chances are good you will enjoy thiswell so I would recommend seeing itAnd just as a warning this is the kind of movie that truly attractshate since it's an easy target. An American movie perverting a frenchbook? It's practically every internet troll to complain about thingsabout this. However if you enjoy epic action packed thrill rides don'tpay attention to this people and just go out there and enjoy the hellout of this movie ;)
PlanecrazyIkarus 15 May 2012
Dazzling the eyes while grating away at your ears and slowly eating your soul
The Three Musketeers must be one of the most filmed stories of alltime. It seems like major movie adaptations now happen every 5 years,and major TV adaptations at a similar pace.So, the last big movie adaptation was all about wire-fu. Why has itbeen filmed again? The advent of 3D. Apparently, every new fad inHollywood must immediately be followed by a 3 musketeers film"reimagining" the old story by applying the new fad. There is also ahint of steampunk about this - but the historical setting far predatesthe steam age, so instead we get a bit of nonsense about Leonardo DaVinci and airships. (Leonardo, by the way, drew schemata for heavierthan air flying craft, and tanks. Not, as far as I recall, lighter thanair craft)So, how does this movie fare? The plot is roughly the same as in thelast few adaptations I've seen (I never read the book: I read Count ofMonte Christo, found it a bit too heavy on the religiousness, anddidn't muster the energy to read 3 Musketeers). Except, this timearound, Buckingham is a villain. (Orlando Bloom, being as uncharismaticas ever)The action is competent enough - lots of CG, Milla Jovovich gets toleap around in period dress instead of combat gear or scifi rubber, andthe traps in this film are about as close to scifi Resident Evil /heist movie type traps as they could get away with. The fencing,meanwhile, plays second or third fiddle to the big CG action setpieces,so don't expect anything too old fashioned.But the dialogue... well, it's stolen. My ears kept detecting lineafter line and after a while, I started realising that this film hadthe gall to pretty much steal half its dialogue from previous musketeerfilms and other sources. At some point, a character uses an Oscar Wildeline. I would not be surprised if it turned out that the script doesnot contain a single line of original writing. Even the jokes fromprevious movies are stolen (D'Artagnan's insistence that a characterapologises to his horse, for example). When not grating your ears withstolen dialogue, the film allows far too much screen time to a thirdrate British comedian / sidekick (James Corden?) who is probably themost annoying thing in the entire film. The other actors, meanwhile, manage to strut around on screen whilefailing to produce even the slightest hint at on-screen chemistry,instead delivering line after line in their blandest ever performances.Even Christoph Waltz doesn't try to steal the show, which says a lot.(Will he ever be cast as a non-psychopathic character? He wascharismatic in Inglorious Basterds, but now, he's been flogging thathorse for a while...). Meanwhile, this particular incarnation ofConstanze is even more underwhelming than Mena Suvari's effort in thelast Musketeer film I've seen - and that says a lot.So, plagiarised dialogue, bland performances, visually pretty CG actionthat is mindbogglingly silly... On the whole, that all sounds ratherbad. And (in a Top Gear-esque revelation), it is. It's also reasonablywatchable if you can totally switch off your brain and focus all yourattention on Athos, who is the only actor/character projecting even theslightest hint of charisma in this entire soulless endeavour. PaulAnderson should probably stick to futuristic stuff and zombie movies -for Resident Evil, the slick visuals can, in combination with athumping soundtrack, be enough to make fairly soulless films enjoyable.(And, to be fair, zombie scifi video game adaptations are a genre wherea certain degree of cold, by-the-numbers film making is perfectlyacceptable and expected). But the Three Musketeers? No, that story hasbeen done with so much more gusto and passion in the past, any newadaptation should really dazzle more than just the eyes...PS: Milady? Seriously? Sounds more like a name for a dog than a namefor a character. Then again, this film credits some character names as"Blonde" and "Cougar", so I suppose naming the female lead "Milady" isnot out of line with that sort of approach to the female gender...
goebel-c 09 May 2012
"Nuking the fridge" is harmless in comparison to what this film does
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 toaddress, they are the reason for my extraordinarily low ranking, whichwould have been even lower if I had not thought it disrespectful tothose actors who did their job very well (against all odds).One may argue that screen adaptations require some changes to be madeto the original material, and I wholeheartedly agree, but the changesmade to this particular adaption are so fundamental they might as wellnot have bothered to call it ÂThe Three Musketeers". There is as goodas nothing left of the original plot in this movie, and what is left ofit is changed beyond recognition. I did expect it to be more actionladen than ultimately necessary, I expected it to deviate from theoriginal plot, but nothing could possibly have prepared me for thisshipwreck of a film. One might think that while a film shouldn't be required to follow thebook's plot word by word to qualify for bearing the title of a famousnovel - one should be able to tell it is supposed to be based on saidnovel, right? Apparently not. Apart from the title and the the names ofthe characters, there is but little that would betray it to be evenroughly based on Dumas' novel. Buckingham is turned from lover to evilLord, and Queen Anne into a blameless little lamb who fell prey to theCardinal's machinations. No such thing as the fleur-de-lis is evenmentioned. Constance doesn't only not die, she isn't even threatened byMilady. And that's just a selection. One might be led to think it was deliberately conceived as a parody ofremakes. After all, it has all the ingredients  a butchered plot,characters with any debt taken out of them (despite the fact that ifgiven the chance, most actors would have delivered an outstandingperformance, but the time usually assigned to character development isdevoured by Âsexy" scenes featuring Milla Jovovich  who herself is awhole other problem), references to everything from the Matrix toMission Impossible, goodness  it even has airships. Airships. Not one, not two, but an entire armada of airships. Iunderstand that Rocheford's eye patch is tempting, but they might aswell have put a parrot on his shoulder, it would not have managed tomake it appear any more ridiculous. I was surprised they did notventure to release an air Kraken. If this film had had less Milla Jovovich, no airships and if anyone hadbothered to actually read "The Three Musketeers" beforehand, it mighthave been decent - and had they fixed some minor problems (like theannoyingly clean costumes and settings), it may even have been great.It certainly had the potential. It's a pity it nuked the fridge... orshould I say - flew the airship?
kosmasp 08 May 2012
Update 1000.0
I have not kept track of how many Three Musketeer movies they are. Andthis won't go down in history as the best adaptation ever (well for themajority of the people that is). But its update is kinda fun to watch.Not really good, but kinda fun. Even if you feel that some actors arewasted here (Waltz had to wait until Carnage to have a role that hecould actually work with again, after "Ingl. Basterds") or are not onthe screen often enough (pick a name).But you can't fail the movie for trying to be a hip update. It doeshave some nice ideas, some "funny" bits (dialogue isn't that badactually) and nice action sequences. A light entertainment movieoverall then, that you might enjoy if you want to.
Troy_Campbell 02 May 2012
Big, ridiculous and fun.
Big, loud and ridiculous; this period epic is pretty much exactly whatyou would expect from Resident Evil and AVP: Alien vs. Predatordirector Paul W.S. Anderson. Although unlike those aforementioned duds,along with Mortal Kombat and Soldier, Anderson has actually succeededin making one of his flicks enjoyable. Alexandre Dumas' famous trio ofswashbucklers  Athos (Matthew MacFadyen, uninspiring), Aramis (LukeEvans, solid) and Porthos (Ray Stevenson, funny)  are joined by ayoung D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman, just passable) to retrieve a stolenpiece of royal jewellery from the arrogantly evil Buckingham (OrlandoBloom, hilarious) and the deadly assassin Milady de Winter (MillaJovovich, decent). It's all very silly, however with a plethora ofrousing action set pieces (the midway battle where D'Artagnan uniteswith the Musketeers is a standout) and plenty of spot-on humour, Icouldn't help but be mindlessly swept away.
ayante_hdc 01 May 2012
My god...
Friend of mine invites me to a free preview. Half an hour after themovie started I said to myself "thanks I didn't pay for this". I don'tlike to say "never" but I have to make a big effort to remember anyfilm as bad as this. Those "Matrix/Ocean Twelve/Mission Impossible"scenes totally out of context, out of time and out of everything mademe feel embarrassed. When I saw the shipping flying, well, that was toomuch.It's a pity because they were good actors, specially Christoph Waltzand Mads Mikkelsen. Mila Jovovich it's a beauty, but her acting skillsare not on the top, specially working along with Waltz.This movie should be done with more cheap actors and having youngerpeople as target.
chichone 28 April 2012
two hours i will never get back
I still ask myself is it really possible that this movie is so bad.Terrible story line, awful dialogs, immature performance from theactors. Total waste of time! The worst thing is the average Joe will associate Dumas' master piecewith this rubbish and would never realize its real value. I wouldn't besurprised if in the US they would watch the movie in school instead ofactually reading the book. I bet Dumas is turning over in his grave. Dear Mr Paul Anderson, next time when you decide to "create" anothermovie please inform us well in advance we will gladly pay you the prizeof a ticket just to prevent you from doing it.
bousozoku 27 April 2012
Enjoyable for all the wrong reasons
Poor Mr. Dumas would probably laugh about this. Someone has taken a bitof literary freedom with his story. It reminds me of Die Schatzinsel, arevised look at Stevenson's Treasure Island.We have the young man some older, wiser, and very cynical men and atleast, one woman trying to tie up all the loose ends of the story.The plot centers around trying to take over the kingdom of France. Ifthat's a spoiler, I guess the book is a spoiler. Perhaps, because ofthis movie, someone will open the book and read the original storywritten by Dumas.The fight scenes are quite good and entertaining, though thefast-slow-fast-slow is annoying. The personal scenes lack chemistry.e.g., as D'Artanyan finishes his sword practice with his father. Hisfather reaches to place his had upon the heart, but D'Artanyan takes astep back. Perhaps, he fears his father? It seemed unfortunate.In fact, the quiet moments are where the movie falters and it isunfortunate since the action scenes are so good.I can say that I like the film and that, seeing the 3D version, it wasnot 3D for the sake of 3D, save one element.I believe that most people will be bored after the initial big fightsequence until the very end where the action is resumed.
remaxmiracle 23 April 2012
lame.
I have to admit, I wasn't expecting the 3 Musketeers meets Will Smith'sWild Wild West. Odd use of steam punk technology.Anyhoo...I missed this in the theaters and I am glad I did. What awimpy, poorly acted piece of garbage. Makes me sad for the cast, asmost of them have done far better work in other movies.The plot lacked the right balance. Not enough humor, not enough pathos.Athos was not very moody. Porthos more arrogant than cocky and selfconfident. Aramis...he was almost a throw away in this movie and thebest thing I can say about D'artagnan is he was better than ChrisO'Donnell in the 1993 version. Milady is transformed from sly,dangerous seductress to a stealthy ninja in fancy dress.Blech. Not even worth having on as back ground noise.
Jason McCall 22 April 2012
D'Artagnan was my only complaint.
I loved Milla Jovovich as Milady de Winter. She was definitely in herelement as far as action scenes. Her experience working in the ResidentEvil films really paid off. Mads Mikkelsen and Christoph Waltz are suchamazing villains. And as far as casting the original Musketeers, thetrio was fantastic.I only had one complaint about this film. D'Artagnan. This is one flaw,but it is one heck of a flaw.All the wonderful aspects of this film don't make up for the fact thatLogan Lerman didn't seem to have what it takes to take the mantle ofD'Artagnan.
Linas Krisiukenas 19 April 2012
Here musketeers go again.
If Alexandre Dumas lived after the invention of cinema, he would bedamn good script writer, I bet. His novel ÂThe Three Musketeers" hasbeen interpreted on screen countless of times not without a reason,even Mickey, Donald and Goofy combo played it back in 2004 ("All forfun, fun for all"). So, here musketeers come again, this time directedby Paul W.S. Anderson, empowered by quite impressive cast: womenmelting Orlando Bloom (Lord of the Rings, Kingdom of Heaven), AcademyAward nominee Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds) and supermodelMilla Jovovich (Resident Evil, The Fifth Element).ÂThe Three Musketeers" begins with "Assassin's Creed" or "Prince ofPersia" game series style presentation of the characters (for those,who are unfamiliar with the titles, it's stealth action games, filledwith various ninja'ish special effects). Modern Athos (MatthewMacfadyen) reborns as a diving assassin equipped with gadgets wortheven Batman's attention, Aramis (Luke Evans) becomes a roof jumpingrenaissance ninja and Porthos (Ray Stevenson) seems to have gotten somesupernatural strength Ignoring those new super abilities they got, thecast of three old musketeers does really solid performance, althoughthere are not much space for expressing their potential because of thelack of dialogues and focus of the plot being on other characters(D'Artagnan, King, Richelieu). Another big figure in the plot, Milady(Milla Jovovich), joins trio in robbing Da Vinci's vault (!), Miladyperforms slo-mo-bullets-escaping-twelve-years-old ÂMatrix" like runthrough trapped corridor and after reaching the goal  plans of modernwarfare  betrays musketeers.A year passes, musketeers feel betrayed, lost their way and motivation("We are warriors, but there is no one to fight"). France is ruled byyoung, good-hearted, deeply fallen in love and totally not interestedin politics King Louis XIII(Freddie Fox), which is manipulated bycunning Richelieu. And here comes hot tempered gaskon garçon namedD'Artagnan (young Logan Lerman) and spices things up by challenging allthree old musketeers to a duel. Paul Anderson was not very originalhere and used original Dumas's idea of how quadruplet got together andunited for saving the honor of France and fighting Richelieu's(Christoph Waltz) bodyguards. At this point new musketeer's era begins.New era full of action, rapier battles, special effects, airship fightsand mediocre jokes begins The new version is pumped with visual effects, most of them obviouslydesigned for 3D version. The battle of airships with massiveflamethrowers on top might actually be interesting if only you are ableto get rid of idea scratching somewhere inside your head that somethingis just not right. Unfortunately, most of other, almost iconic, actionscenes is seen somewhere else: escaping bullets, fighting on therooftop or crossing "lasers" corridor leaves bitter taste in yourmouth.This story adaptation does not come anywhere close to the level ofentertainment Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes gives, but if you arelooking for brainless action movie with some nice costumes andlandscapes The Three Musketeers still might be your pick. If you arenot into this kind of movies or just like Dumas's original story Âsimply stay away from it.
Chris_Pandolfi 18 April 2012
I Don't Think Dumas Had Airships in Mind
"The Three Musketeers" plays less like an adaptation of AlexandreDumas' original novel and more like a test drive for a new historicalvideo game. Indeed, it was directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, whose careeris in part defined by films based on video games ("Mortal Kombat,""Alien vs. Predator," the first and third "Resident Evil" films withanother one on the way). It's not the deviations that bother me; Itruly could not care less how unfaithful a film is from its source solong as I'm being entertained. What bothers me is the simple-mindednesswith which the story is told. This new "The Three Musketeers"  withits exaggerated stunt work, silly steampunk special effects, and awfultwenty-first century dialogue  is an adequate film forfifteen-year-old gamers who have not seen any previous adaptation,never read the novel, and barely glanced at the CliffNotes.The film has been shot and released in 3D. Perhaps it depends on thetheater, but in my particular case, viewing it that way required aprojection filter that dimmed the picture substantially, more so thanfor any film I've seen in 3D. The colors were faded and muddy. Thebright scenes looked hazy, as if I was viewing them through a scrim.The dark scenes were just shy of unwatchable. On top of all that, the3D is itself not all that immersive. If you see it in traditional 2D(and I strongly suggest you do), you may actually appreciate how goodthe film looks. The costumes are ornate, the sets are opulent, andalthough inappropriate from a narrative and historical standpoint, thecomputer graphics are detailed and convincing. If only an effort hadbeen made with the screenplay and some of the casting choices; maybethen the film could have worked as escapist fun, irrespective of thefact that Dumas never conceived of cannon-blasting airships planned byLeonardo Da Vinci, secret passages that open with hidden switches, andconcealed vaults booby trapped with darts.Aspects of the plot should be familiar by now. Taking place in theseventeenth century, we meet the Three Musketeers  Athos (MatthewMacfayden), Porthos (Ray Stevenson), and Aramis (Luke Evans)  afighting company for the French monarchy. Once the pride of theircountry, their last mission was a failure, and they were forced todisband. Athos is drunk who, since being betrayed by his lover, doesn'tbelieve in anything anymore. Porthos is broke and is occasionallyslipped some money by wealthy women. Aramis, a clergyman, remains a manof God but has separated himself from the Church. Into their livesenters a young peasant named D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman), who travels toParis to become a Musketeer, like his father once was. Headstrong andquick-tempered, he isn't chivalrous so much as cocky, challengingdangerous people to duels. Such a person is Captain Rochefort (MadsMikkelson), who made the impertinent gesture of insulting D'Artagnan'shorse.In due time, all four of them become embroiled in a case ofinternational intrigue. It begins with the self-serving Milady deWinter (Milla Jovovich), who broke Athos' heart by double crossing theMusketeers and selling the airship blueprints they stole from Venice toEngland's Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). She's now in league withCardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz), who plots to manufacture a warbetween France and England and take control away from the sniveling,foppish King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox). This will involve stealing anecklace from Louis' young wife, Queen Anne (Juno Temple). It's up tothe Musketeers and D'Artagnan to retrieve the necklace before France isplunged into chaos.It's not so much an issue of plot, although a cannonball fight in theclouds is admittedly ridiculous, as is an impossibly elaborateswordfight on the rooftops and buttresses of Notre Dame Cathedral. It'smore a matter of dialogue and characterization, which werethoughtlessly handled. Characters like King Louis, with his overplayedeye for fashion and hilariously unconvincing attraction to his wife, isa desperately broad caricature that serves as nothing other than comedyrelief. Milady could have been intriguing were it not for themiscasting of Jovovich; she's not a bad actress, and she certainlylooks sexy enough, but she lacks the sophistication (and the accent)necessary for this role. The Musketeers themselves are decent enough,but there's something off about D'Artagnan, and again, I think it's amatter of casting. Lerman, fresh-faced though he may be, brings nopassion to the role. He comes off as impudent, reckless, and, despitesome well-choreographed swordfights, not at all heroic.During certain action scenes, Anderson relies on a technique that madehis previous film, "Resident Evil: Afterlife," very annoying. He hasspecific shots of stunt work play in slow motion, presumably in aneffort to make them more dramatic  and, of course, to enhance the 3Dprocess, since they're often superimposed with images of flyingobjects, mostly swords. It's a reasonable idea, but the way he handlesit, it comes off as a gimmick. Also consider a shot in which Athosfires a cannonball; the camera follows up close it as it flies throughthe air; we can even see the fuse sparkling away. Does Anderson reallywant us to scrutinize these kinds of details? Or is he merelysatisfying his desire for mindless action and special effects? MaybeI'm asking for too much, but I believe that even a dumbed-down,revisionist version of "The Three Musketeers" deserves more than that.-- Chris Pandolfi (www.atatheaternearyou.net)
Tiw Lado 17 April 2012
Assassin's Creed IV: The Musketeers
...This is most suitable title for this movie and if there are peoplereading this review, who are also familiar with the mentioned game,they will totally agree with me.Forget all about history, Alexander Dumas, Elementary logic and anybelievability. Just sit back and watch for well-shot fight scenes (Mixof Antonio Banderas' Zorro's and said above Assassin's Creed) and someimaginary pre-steam-punk period France... with little bit of Englandtoo.Cardinal is the bad guy. Lady De Winter is double-faced spy andMusketeers kick ass - That's enough story for you to enjoy mindlessaction.With this cast, acting could be better. Music is nothing exceptionaland true lovers of classic will be highly insulted.3 Stars for the stupid movie + 1 star for Mila being hot as always...
robert parker 17 April 2012
loved it
went expecting little , but it rattled along no dull moments or pausesthe interiors and costumes stunning. Orlando Bloom needs a medal forbeing able to wear outrageous costumes with such panache. the air shipcrash on notre dame show stopping , the final sequence a knockout. morefun than the last pirates, the cast looked fresh seemed to be enjoyingthemselves- loved this take on the three musketeers, hope there's asequel Buckingham's revenge perhaps. this never set out to please thecritics, 'im sick of Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan being shoved atus. we go the movies to be taken out of ourselves in troubled times andthis does it . for once the colour is strong and vibrant for a change,a feast for the eyes if not the intellect, but who cares sit back andenjoy.
Lloyd Bayer 14 April 2012
All bang and no flash!
There is a saying that goes by the words "Don't fix it if it ain'tbroke". While there has been umpteen re-makes of the classic novel byAlexandre Dumas, this latest adaptation is not one that Dumas would beproud of. Rather, this film is a desecration of fine prose and theresting place of Dumas himself. The logic defying script expects theviewer to suspend reality with ships that fire cannons while sailingthrough the air, Ninja styled breach and entry, a "Mission Impossible"styled heist and exotic weaponry, all within the confines of what wassupposed to be the renaissance period of 17th century France.I have found this movie mostly disappointing, starting with the totallyunnecessary satire in the script. It is one thing to inject a littlecomedy, but where is the need to make a parody of one the most widelytranslated works of literature? Played by Logan Lerman, D'Artagnan setsout to become a musketeer and arrives in Paris to find the famed trioAthos (Matthew Macfadyen), Aramis (Luke Evans) and Porthos (RayStevenson) 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) reinstatesAthos, Aramis and Porthos to their former rank and even has D'Artagnanjoin them for good measure. The awesome foursome then discovers theCardinal's deadly plot to overthrow the King. By employing Athos'sformer lover the beautiful but deadly assassin M'lady De Winter (MillaJovovich), the Cardinal fabricates infidelity between the Queen (JunoTemple) 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, whileacquiring the throne of France for himself. It is now up to the (four)musketeers to prevent France and England from plunging into war bystopping M'lady De Winter from executing the Cardinals evil plan.With a budget of US$ 100 million, Alexandre Dumas' complex plot issimplified for this movie but hugely amplified with visual effects and3 D. The effects are literally blown out of proportion while 3 D doesnot appear to have served its purpose. In comparison, the 1993 titlestill holds its ground with a lowly budget of US$17 million. The veryobvious difference is in the screenplay. In adapting for film, bothversions have strayed from the book, but there is still a lot of focuson the story in the 1993 version. With this 2011 remake, director andco-producer Paul .W. S. Anderson has unwisely sacrificed an engagingand all time favorite work of fiction for a very expensive piece ofcannon fodder. There is a legend behind the story of the threemusketeers and it stands for valor and honor, the protection of kingand 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 flamboyantaction and goes to the extent of throwing in blades, explosives,zeppelins and yes, fancy fencing . To an extent, creativity in adaptingfor the screen is always appreciated. However, by overdoing it Andersonhas paid a very heavy price as he has not only overlooked core elementsof the story, he has also not given due detail to any of thecharacters. Who were the three musketeers? What made them famous? Whyhave they pledged alliance to a young and weak King? Regrettably,Andrew Davies and Alex Litvak's screenplay does not justify a franchisere-boot by avoiding early origins of the musketeers and the trio'sprominence in the French Monarchy.For a period piece set in the 17th century, costumes, props and setsseem to be convincing. But what do I know; I haven't been alive for thelast 400 years. Although Anderson scores in this area, he fails againwith the totally uninspired acting. Lerman plays a hot-headedD'Artagnan, but not with the same passion as portrayed by actors beforehim. As the titled musketeers, I just could not feel that patrioticvibe from Macfadyen, Evans and Stevenson. As Buckingham, Bloom oozeswith cool and makes a grand entrance but his screen time is limited, sodon't expect too much swashbuckling as his roles in "Pirates of theCaribbean". Jovovich is the same as ever, only here she does not havezombies to kill. My biggest disappointment is the underused ChristophWaltz. We have seen before how fearsome a villain he can be as theconniving and scheming Col. Landa in Tarantino's "Inglorious Basterds".Yet somehow Waltz fails to maintain that same intensity. It becomes allthe more disappointing because the Cardinal is supposedly a central yettreacherous character, but in this film he doesn't appear to be so.Perhaps it all boils down to the script again although I was expectingmore from Waltz in comparison to the rest of the actors, as he couldhave actually been the film's saving grace.At the end of it all, this latest adaptation will not be worthremembering and will go down as a half-baked attempt at remaking amovie that has been made too many times. In my book, the 1993 versionstill rules!
alek69 13 April 2012
Is your book the same as mine?
I imagine, that they discovered one of the early drafts of this Dumas'book, which he probably wrote while being high on hashish, which wasthen the drug of choice, because not all that I saw was familiar andmade sense.Right at the beginning of the movie we are not in France butin...Venice, where Athos, Porthos, Aramis and......Milady are breakinginto Doge's Palace to steal plans to build a war airship. To be able toreach the secret place one has to get through an underground corridor.However, stepping on it's floor engages a secret mechanism, which inturn activates mechanical arrow throwers from behind the walls, whichmakes it impossible to cross that corridor alive ( I remember professorJones having a similar problem). Well, they did cross it! Back in theirhotel, the four of them merrily drink and proudly look at their booty,not suspecting, that Milady, who tenderly whispers to Athos "I loveyou" has secretly poured a sleeping potion into their drinks.My confusion about Milady then dissipates. Of course: she deceivesthem. She IS evil. When they are incapacitated, a man walks into theroom and even though he is in shade, I know of course who he is. He isthe most evil man in the whole France, the most cunning, the most powerhungry.He is Jean Armand Du Plessis, Cardinal de Richelieu.But, but, but... hold my heart still, no!.. He is not... He is... TheDuke of Buckingham!Milady and Buckingham? In cahoots?He needs those plans to build an air armada to attack France. "Aha" Ithink, "that's how he wants to win his beloved Anne of Austria". Butno! He does not love her! He does not even know her! He just wants towin the bloody war! And the queen does not love him either. She is inlove with her HUSBAND! Oy, I'm confused again!Back to France. A year later. The young d'Artagnan arrives in Paris. Hemeets Athos, Porthos and Aramis and, you know how it ends. They startdueling and those five doomed cardinal guards arrive to arrest them.But wait, from a side entrance a new group of guards is arriving. Andanother, and another. There is more and more of them! And the gloriousfighting starts. Agent Smith and his clones, sorry, I meant thecardinal guards are attacking from all sides, from left, from right, ina circle, from above... Hmm...did I see that somewhere else too?After completely overwhelming the overwhelming enemy, the four, nowfriends, triumphantly walk through Paris. The king rewards them. Thequeen is happy. Richelieu is furious!He devises a plan to incriminate the queen. He calls for...Milady!Thank God. She works for him. I am not totally loosing my mind. Shedeceived Buckingham too and brings those stolen plans to the Cardinal.Something finally is the way it was supposed to be.But wait, the plan is different again!They are not bringing the necklace studs back from Buckingham! No, theyhave to steal them from the queen to bring them to Buckingham, so theycan be stolen from Buckingham, who does not even know, that he hasthem. Oy Vey! I'm loosing my mind again.The Milady is entrusted with that mission. As she is about to enter theantechamber leading to the queen's secret cabinet where the necklace ishidden, she pauses knowingly. Then she blows a white powder into theair to expose... Yes, they are there... otherwise invisible... thinstrings, like laser beams, hanging between the walls, that would,what... if touched, trigger an electronic alarm? Milady does not wantto risk it. She somersaults through the air like Catherine Zeta-Jonesin Entrapment, pirouettes, stretches in and out, under and over theobstacles, to so effortlessly reach for the necklace.Now they have to set their plan in motion.But I will not spoil for you the rest of this singular movie. You wantto see how Dumas foresaw a "Star Trek" expedition? You want to see howthe "Pirates Of the Caribbean's" ships battle originated? You want tosee a great amount of swordplay? You want to see the blood curlingRochefort? You want to see what happens to Milady when she fallswithout a parachute from an air ship cruising at a Boeing 787 altitude?Well, if you do, go and see it yourself.Strangely, I promised myself to enjoy the movie and I enjoyed it.
siderite 11 April 2012
Everything in the trailer and not much more
If you would take Pirates of the Caribbean and replace Johnny Depp withMila Jovovich and changed pirates with musketeers you would not get amovie much different from The Three Musketeers. That doesn't mean it isnot fun, but forget any hope of suspension of disbelief. This is eyecandy only, with some occasional reasonable jokes and a lot of pumpedup action.As it is, the film does not cheat, and I guess that is something. Youget what you expect if you see the trailer. Not much else going on,though. No connection to any reality, modern or feudal.Bottom line: best scene is when Mila is pouting for being caught. Watchthe film if you are really bored.
MBloodT 11 April 2012
All For Fun
At first glance, we all know that this will never be a great version ofThe Three Musketeers but with all the flying ships and theswashbucklery, 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 thefilm. The cast made it enjoyable. The 3D is surprisingly good. But inthe end, it's just another blockbuster. The film also had troubles toits pacing and the writing is a bit modern. The Three Musketeers won'tend up as a classic but it can be fun in some times.The baffle goes to the director. Paul W.S. Anderson is an unusualperson to direct a film like this since he's more of a futuristicaction movie guy. Adding some steampunk and plenty of slow-mos. Thefilm didn't end up being too faithful to the original story. Thedirector just wants to feel comfortable to his style. Modernism, CoolDevices, Hot Women, and Slow-Mo. The pacing is problematic in thesecond act. It shows the plan of the villains and in parts, you won'tnotice 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 likeTransformers where the titular characters only appear when there'sdanger and mostly focuses to a kid and the villains. But here, thetitular characters are not bland.Some of the cast made their scenes enjoyable. Logan Lerman does histhing. Not quite appreciating though. But his female fans will love it.The actors who played the three musketeers gives plenty of personalityto their roles. Matthew Macfadyen is pretty cool as Athos. We don't getto see much Luke Evans but he is cunning as Aramis. Ray Stevenson is asusual, funny and had much character. In the antagonists, ChristopheWaltz has many style of being a villain. Orlando Bloom looks like he'senjoying but a little threat in his little scenes. Mads Mikkelsen isthe only serious villain among them. Milla Jovovich does her swaggerand seductiveness but a little personality.The action is pretty cool. But so much slow-mos. Just like in ResidentEvil Afterlife. Slow-motion to make it cool. Anderson started theseexcessive slow-mos in Resident Evil 4. Maybe he thought these thingswill affect the 3D or maybe he just wanted to be cool. It's cool enoughbut when the musketeers was helping D'Artagnan to fight Rochefort'sarmy, 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 howviolent they kill, you won't see a single drop. The 3D is surprisinglygood. 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 wellmade. The CGI were obviously good. The flying battleships and some CGIswords. CGI bombs. CGI background. The music score fits the whole themebut 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 thisadaptation but if you are in for some steampunk, slow-mos,swashbuckling swordfights then try watch this. It will not remain aclassic or one of the best. It's not really trying to be the best. It'sjust a version with futuristic elements or it could be just a 3Dgimmick. The movie wasn't bad as I expected but it has those flaws thataren't easy to ignore. It just wanted to be fun. It's good to watch asan action film. As an adaptation, it's good to watch right now butsomeday it'll be forgotten or ignored. But really, this is fun.