The Three Musketeers

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.

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.

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.

In the plot, D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) meets the legendary musketeers Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Aramis (Luke Evans) and Porthos (Ray Stevenson) after several disagreements. They end up falling into a new adventure that could threaten a new war between France and England and they need to join forces to avoid it. Among the obstacles are the spy Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich), Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom), the corrupt Cardinal Richelieu (Christopher Waltz) and his agent Rochefort (Mads Mikkelsen). In a mixture of humor, sword fights and aerial battles, the characters need to prove that bravery is above any difficulty.

The screenplay by Alex Litvak ("Predators") and Andrew Davies (of the two "Bridget Jones") takes complete freedom to retell Dumas' story. For this, they update themselves in an interesting prologue involving Leonardo's drawings for a kind of flying ship, which can serve as a war strategy for nations. While betrayals are planned, the musketeers need, above all, to find a new reason to live an adventure and, encouraged by the young D'Artagnan, they agree to rescue a jewel that could compromise relations between France and England. It is treated almost as an excuse for swords to be crossed. The almost epic battles, especially in the final act, constantly take the viewer's breath away, who is immersed in pure fun. After all, "The Three Musketeers" has always been, above any bravery it wanted to expose, entertainment.

The truth is that calling this adaptation The Three Musketeers or mentioning the name of its author, Alexandre Dumas, in the credits, is more than an insult, it is an affront. It could very well be titled Milady and the Flying Ships, which would fairly reflect what is on the scene, after all, Athos (Macfayden), Porthos (Stevenson), Aramis (Evans) and D'Artagnan (Lerman) are almost supporting characters in her history itself, serving as means rather than ends of the narrative and never justifying the reluctance of the musketeers to seek a noble enough cause that would impel them to once again defend France.

Evidently, the script preserves the central characters of Dumas' work, especially Cardinal Richelieu (Waltz) and Colonel Rochefort (Mikkelsen), as well as Constance (Gabriella Wilde). However, the similarities stop there. In a plot involving dirigible ships - the only good idea of the entire narrative -, betrayals and the tension between England and France, the scriptwriters only seek to establish, with an emphasis on the seek, the rules of the narrative after it crosses the middle of its duration, when Cardinal Richelieu devises a strange plan to frame the Queen (Juno Temple) of treason with the Duke of Buckingham (Bloom). Until then, the viewer is obliged to accompany D'Artagnan giving love advice to King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox), accompany this character rambling about the new color of fashion or laugh at the comic incursions of Planchet (James Corden), even see him getting hit by pigeon poop, certainly one of the most original gags in film history.

It is worse to imagine that the screenwriters consider themselves to be intelligent or opportune when, in a chess duel between Richelieu and Louis XIII, the former lectures the young man on the king's vulnerability in the game. In addition, it is hard work to think about the script, as when Constance convinces D'Artagnan and exposes Richelieu's plan, even establishing the place where an artifact would be that would seal the supposed betrayal. Moreover, admitting that the musketeers would escape France as easily as they would have arrived in England and without facing the slightest resistance is one of those moments of mental laziness that makes the viewer completely abandon the narrative.

"The Three Musketeers" is nothing more than mediocre and ordinary, common and obvious. Starting with the choice of protagonist, the young Logan Lerman, who had previously wrecked another franchise (Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, 2010). The boy lacks charisma, and his D'Artagnan borders on irritating. Those cast to bring the famous trio of musketeers to life are so apathetic and irrelevant that we don't even care what happens to them: Matthew MacFadyen (Pride and Prejudice, 2005), makes an Athos ready to cry at any moment; Ray Stevenson (The Punisher: In War Zone, 2008), appears as a tamed Porthos, far from the involving rebelliousness of the original; and Luke Evans even has a certain charm, but not enough to recall the conquering Aramis.

Reducing the musketeers to stereotypes, Anderson presents Aramis for his religiosity and D'Artagnan for his impetuosity. With nothing to add, they boil down to extras in action scenes, honorable and brave swordsmen fighting after any provocation for a dignified France (if this description gives you goosebumps, imagine seeing them on stage). For her part, Milla Jovovich is improving herself more and more in action cinema, dodging bullets fired at close range and crossing a protected room as if she were her Alice from "Resident Evil"; Meanwhile, Orlando Bloom, desperate to revive Will Turner, is hammy as a villain, forcing an unthreatening voice and a pompadour that would make Elvis jealous. Mads Mikkelsen succeeds in building a fragile Rochefort in the hands of Richelieu, but his last scene in the narrative suffers from chronic embarrassment and involuntary laughter. Finally, Waltz does his best to avoid the cardinal being just a caricature, but fails thanks to the reductionism of the script.

Emulating the swashbuckling genre, in his eagerness to be a new "Pirates of the Caribbean", Paul W. S. Anderson, not content with transforming the fight in the center of the city into a reissue of that feature, also adds pirate ships and makes use of the soundtrack by Paul Haslinger, which, although competent, does not come close to those of Klaus Badelt and Hans Zimmer for the tetralogy of pirates. Anderson even fails in some unnecessary shots like the one of Milady throwing a handkerchief to a fallen D'Artagnan or the one that follows the fall of a pistol from the airship; in the same sense, his predilection for circular tracking shots also has no narrative purpose, serving only to draw the public's attention that there is someone behind the cameras (it would be better if there wasn't). Unable to end his narrative correctly and betting on a pretentious hook for the continuation, the director murdered a classic work and proved his desire to establish a franchise in the best "Pirates of the Caribbean" style. He regrets that these musketeers, not Dumas's, are leagues away from Jack Sparrow and his band.

Technically, the production is better. The art direction, combined with the special effects, efficiently reconstructs the French modern age, visiting some historic monuments such as the Palace of Versailles or the Church of Notre dame. However, the fluid animation at the opening of the narrative leaves a lot to be desired, probably influenced by the 3D recording. Due to the imposition of 3D, Alexander Berner's editing has a fluid and dynamic pace, suitable for an action production, but creating the false impression that, due to the time passing quickly, the film is good. However, it is curious that in a good part of the second act, the musketeers do not even appear gracefully, a mistake that can be attributed to Berner.

Another novelty - this one, yes, much better thought out and explored - is the steampunk setting, with new weapons and even a drivable ship, which makes for a good aerial battle. But that's it. Passionate about technology and hooked on 3D, Anderson uses the most modern cameras that exist here, but he doesn't manage to create something new, pointing a sword here and throwing some things there in the direction of the public, in addition to creating a sense of depth in large sockets. If it works in the open plan, the same cannot be said for the countless times that "Game of Thrones" models and maps are filmed to show the change of scenery. Sword fights, which could be a differentiator, are little explored. The best of them, the first one, uses "300" slow motion, but that's kind of the end of it. Perhaps due to the difficulty of filming longer shots, with a lot of choreography and few cuts, the director once again opted to use his already known megalomania to blow things up.

2011's "The Three Musketeers" abandons its noble origins to become a generic of how a good action movie should be, but without the necessary elements that would set it apart from the sameness of others. Directed without creativity, interpreted without passion and realized as if its only objective were to capitalize on top of the box office, it still commits the audacity of setting up an ending that points to an eventual continuation - something that, by the way, will not happen. And to think that we reached the day when we would miss the 1993 version, which featured Chris O'Donnell as D'Artagnan and the indefectible Charlie Sheen, Kiefer Sutherland and Oliver Platt as Aramis, Athos and Porthos. If we came to consider that production an outrage, it's because we didn't even imagine that we would have this, even more catastrophic, ahead of us.

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!