The Three Musketeers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> The Three Musketeers (10/10/2011 2:21:16 PM)

Post your comments on this article




Timon -> (10/10/2011 2:21:16 PM)

Intriguing. Jolin has listed all my fears about the film... but if it's fun, I could be persuaded.

Plus I love McFadyen, Evans and especially Stevenson.




Spaldron -> RE: (10/10/2011 3:41:11 PM)

It should have a Bryan Adams/Rod Stewart/Sting soundtrack.....






....oh.




gordonsalive -> RE: RE: (10/10/2011 7:36:27 PM)

I have no intention of seeing this at the cinema but I have to say I really enjoyed the review! 




kargon -> RE: RE: (10/10/2011 7:38:40 PM)

Please please Hollywood, more versions of the 3 Musketeers.




blindfold -> We Need To Talk About Empire (11/10/2011 9:16:51 AM)

Oh god, NO No No. This was highly insulting to anyone who is a fan of the original story. Heck even that Charlie Sheen version was better than this mess.
EMPIRE I think have a soft spot for Anderson I think and it's really starting to show. That and the fact they keep playing his promo-reels at Movie con. Stop sucking on the corporate Pecker Empire, You are not Rock N Roll anymore. My subscription renewal is hanging in the balance now.




Gazz -> RE: We Need To Talk About Empire (11/10/2011 3:18:00 PM)

The average score Empire awards Paul WS Anderson is 2/5 (Death Race, Alien vs Predator, the entire Resident Evil series) and yet here you are accusing Empire of 'sucking the corporate pecker' because they're awarding his latest film 3/5 and calling it a guilty pleasure. Are you fucking kidding me?

I guess you can always blackmail the staff into writing a review specifically for your individual taste by waving the current state of your Empire subscription in their face though. That'll work!





Arrad Foot -> Total Miss-keteers (13/10/2011 11:01:18 AM)

Three Musketeers 3D wasted two hours of my life last night. What a steaming pile of overblown rubbish. Looked fabulous, and lots of talent totally wasted by dire script and direction. It was like the bastard child of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Matrix III. A classic adventure, rendered into some sort of comic strip structure but then scripted by a 12 year old – presumably so it is not too complex for the American market, and presented with all the emotion and engagement of a low-budget video game. Ten minutes in I was looking at my watch and asking: “When is it going to finish?”
I have an aversion to paying for a ticket and walking out but came pretty close last night.
How can anyone can even contemplate a sequel?




Revstar -> Not seen the movie but... (13/10/2011 12:55:49 PM)

...has Helen O'Hara read this review? I'm thinking here of her blog about people defending the indefensible purely because it's 'enjoyable and a bit of fun'. Mixed message much? Follow your own advice please Empire! I shan't be seeing the film as am sure I won't be able to hear the thing over the sound of Dumas rotating at great speed in his grave, if the execrable trailer is a measure of the finished film.




Cameron1975Williams -> Kids, check out the 1973 version. (13/10/2011 3:13:46 PM)

Raquel Welch' Constance is one of the sexiest characters ever !




Dr Lenera -> RE: Kids, check out the 1973 version. (13/10/2011 6:36:23 PM)

1625 France, and Athos, Porthos and Aramis, the Three Musketeers, undergo a deadly mission for King Louis XIII but are betrayed by the scheming Milady De Winter, who is really working for the evil Cardinal Richleau.  He wants to take the throne from the young, weak king and to do this intends to fabricate infidelity between the Queen and England’s Duke Of Buckingham, thereby causing war and acquiring the throne for himself.  Meanwhile the rash, inexperienced D’Artagnan sets out to become a Musketeer just like his father and journeys to Paris.  Arriving, he separately challenges Athos, Porthos, Aramis and the vicious Rochefort to duels, but ends up helping the Musketeers defeat fourty of the Cardinal’s soldiers.  Perhaps, together, they could be the ones to save France……..



 And so once again Alexandre Dumas’ great swashbuckling 1844 novel is adapted for the screen, and one may say why not, it’s worked several times before.  The 1948, 1974 and 1993 versions were all merry romps, and I even have a soft spot for the 2001 variation on the story The Musketeer.  Unfortunately, this particular version is easily the worst one that I’ve seen, a messy, irritating and dumb  ‘blockbuster’ that is grating and possesses all the worst characteristics of a film of its ilk.  Now I’m certainly not adverse to enjoying this kind of movie, but this one either seems to treat its audience like total morons or was made by morons; it’s hard to tell.  I’m not really a fan of director Paul W. Anderson, but he can make entertaining movies, such as Death Race and Event Horizon.  Here, he doesn’t even seem able to do that.

At first it doesn’t seem too bad.  The camera glides over a large map peopled with toy soldiers and buildings, and this nicely sets the scene as some of the soldiers start shooting at each other, we dive in……and suddenly we are in the film ‘proper’.  We join the Musketeers on their mission, and after each one has dispatched some villains in their own particular manner, the picture freezes and their name comes up.  Quite cool, and it looks like we are in for a silly but fun, action packed movie.  Things progress for a while as per all other versions, with young D’Artagnan’s quest to become a  Musketeer alternating with palace intrigue, and we soon have one terrific sword battle which has some of the best choreography I’ve seen in a while, but it soon becomes apparent that writers Andrew Davies [yes, the  Andrew Davies, doyen of TV adaptations like Tipping The Velvet and Sense And Sensibility]  and Alex Litvak plus Anderson are far more interested in the palace intrigue.  Of, to put it more bluntly, Anderson is far more interested in his wife Mila Jovovich, so he places her character, the evil, scheming Milady, centre stage, and turns her into some sort of superwoman [well, she has killed millions of zombies] who can do amazing things like jump through loads of trip wires.  We don’t spend nearly enough time with the Musketeers at all, nor do we see D’Artagnan’s character develop.   With many characters portrayed very differently, including Buckingham becoming a villain, and the final third just becoming a big chase, you won’t recognise much of the novel at all!

I suppose fidelity to its source is not a big deal if the film is good, but it isn’t; it’s embarrassingly idiotic and annoying.  Everything is played to get a laugh, and although there should be a fair bit of humour, not every single scene should be played for laughs.  This results in no tension whatsoever, and more to the point little of it is actually funny.  At one point James Corden turns up, and having suffered through Lesbian Vampires [no I’ve never seen Gavin And Stacey], I felt like walking out, but I stayed.  Something about his whole manner drives me up the wall, and a good example of the level of the film’s humour can be derived in the bit where he complains about being told to sleep on a balcony because he may be hat upon by birds…and so you see him shat upon.  I like a bit of juvenile toilet humour as much as the next person, but in a swashbuckling adventure set in the 1600s?  The action, especially a climactic sword duel on top of Notre Dame Cathedral, is at least done so you can see what is going on, a rarity these days, though the laws of physics hardly seen to exist and to be honest, despite what you may expect, there isn’t actually that much of it.  The film is full of anachronisms, some that may not be important [the script has no idea of the way 17th century noblemen behaved], but I doubt you’ll be able to forgive the airships!  Yes, airships in 17th century France, and they are actual ships with the balloon bit on top, presumably because the movie wants to be Pirates Of The Caribbean more than a Musketeers movie.  Therefore the film can have a lengthy chase and battle between two of them and therefore pretend we are actually at sea.

The acting is okay is places, with a surprise plus being Orlando Bloom as Buckingham, clearly relishing the chance to play a villain and having fun with it, but no one else really stands out, and some of the performances are really inept.  Gabriella Wilde, as Constance, looks like she’s having trouble remembering her lines.  Paul Haslinger’s horrible score is one big and very bad Hans Zimmer copy, usually alternating between  Pirates music and a rip-off of a particular track from Sherlock Holmes.  Technically the film is also awful.  The 3D does give some depth of field and the odd sword sticks out at you, but for some reason in many aerial shots the buildings looks like they are made out of cardboard.  Now I doubt they were, and it’s probably something to do with the 3D, but it looks hilariously bad, and I can’t believe they thought these shots look okay.  Then again, quite often the people look like cardboard cut outs, and I really wish they’d give this gimmick, which still doesn’t look right most of the time, a rest.  Then again, I wish they hadn’t made this movie.  I cannot deny some effort was put into some of the action scenes, and I suppose if you just want to switch your brain off and have some fun, it may pass the time, but so will sitting on the toilet. and it’ll probably be a lot more fulfulling.
2.5/10




st3veebee -> RE: Kids, check out the 1973 version. (13/10/2011 7:36:44 PM)

Caught this today in my local cineworld: went in with a fair amount of optimism after a decent trailer and encouraging empire review. Not a huge fan of the director (who is?) but looked to be a solid cast and perhaps just all round fun.


THE GOOD:



-The action sequences are pretty damn fun with some brilliant swordplay choreography and mostly decent SFX. I personally think slowmotion only suits more modern typed action films and cheapens some of the sequences within. Still, solid stuff in the action department.

-Some of the roles are brilliantly casted and performed, with the three musketeers themselves being particularly enjoyable. Waltz, although seeming like he has wandered into the film by accident, is always good. Same goes for Mikkelson.

-Costumes and sets are impeccable. Possibly not historically accurate, but I wouldn't notice anyway.

-Zips along at a nice pace.


THE BAD:

- Not So Good Casting: Orlando Bloom at least appears to be trying quite hard to be the classic kind of flamboyant evil nemesis...and fails utterly: his hair is amusing though. Lerman is also completely miscast: his brash american attitude/accent, inability to pull off any of his one-liners and stupid wig grate very quickly. Also the less said about James Corden the better...that is a general rule.

-Such a mish mash of accents...not one french one to be heard.

-Dialogue and plot seem to have gone missing. Along with historical accuracy.

- Foldout underwater crossbows? Airships? Flamethrowers?? Airships with flamethrowers?!?!?!?

-Scenes literally stolen from other films.

-The titular characters are put to the side in the favour of the intensely irritating D'Artagnan. A pity, cause they have good chemistry.


Overall its a mess of a film. The casting goes from spot on to shockingly awful. That all said I was never bored and the action is entertaining.




Ciaran McDaid -> (16/10/2011 12:17:17 AM)

lots of mistakes in this one than the original 1




Bighousewill -> Don't Waste Your Time With This One (16/10/2011 2:03:49 PM)

Well this empire reviewer was probably in a really good mood for giving this daft boring nonsense three stars. Stupid film not remotely fun in fact I was bored out of my skull the action was ludicrous unbelievable and the plot was shite its a waste of time it is really insulting don't even bother to see it if someone pays you.




akivo -> RE: Don't Waste Your Time With This One (18/10/2011 2:28:39 PM)

I thoroughly enjoyed this. If, like the Resident Evil series, you are looking for fast, fun action, spectacular set pieces and sumptuous production design you won't be disappointed.

If you are looking for historically accurate stories, plausible acting and gravitas seek out Kenneth Branagh/Ang Lee adaptations.

The Three Musketeers is a hoot from start to finish and looks fabulous. I'm hoping it performs well enough to justify a sequel, and I'd be quite happy to see P WS Anderson direct it.




M155 834N -> One of the worst films I've seen all year! (19/10/2011 8:45:14 AM)

I saw this at a free screening at my cinema for students and we laughed all the way though because it was so damn awful! 3 Stars? I am let down, Empire!
The cast is great & the fencing brilliant but that's about it for good points because there is so much wrong with it. Thank goodness it was a free screening - not worth the money! Everyone groaned and face-palmed at the end with the cheesey lines and cliché sequel material...I could say much more but I think I might be wasting my time...




Enzino -> Impressed (19/10/2011 10:52:37 AM)

This looks completely stupid and I won't go see it, but I enjoyed this review. It endeared the reviewer to me and it's cool to see that professionally critical people are also not immune to a fun and silly ride.




Enzino -> Impressed (19/10/2011 10:52:39 AM)

This looks completely stupid and I won't go see it, but I enjoyed this review. It endeared the reviewer to me and it's cool to see that professionally critical people are also not immune to a fun and silly ride.




thetruth -> RE: Impressed (19/10/2011 11:27:33 PM)

This is a mess.
It simply doesnt know what approach it´s taking and resorts to dire slapstick that makes you think you´re watching Epic Movie or such dross.And it lacks fun.
2 stars,and one of them for Bloom.




bretty -> Mindless nonsense (20/10/2011 8:16:03 AM)

Went with low expectations but actually it was quite fun. One you will forget almost straight away but it does not take itself seriously and neither should you. The casting (with the exception of the dreadful Lerman’s D’Artagnan) is pretty good, especially the bad guys. Enjoyed the cgi of paris and London and the utter nonsense of airship battles.
I've seen a lot worse this year.





Thefifthmusketeer -> Everybody below me is wrong! (minus a few) (23/10/2011 10:46:31 PM)

Ok, I'll admit I've seen only glances of the old films. But I was excited to see this and the film DID NOT let me down. Every actor played their role perfectly. My friend had never seen the other adaptations either and she also loved this version. If you think about it, what would it have been like if they had done what previous versions had done? It would have been boring obviously! Plot has already been done three other times so they brought something new into the mix. There was NOTHING wrong with this film. Nobody wants to except change and change is GOOD! It was no mess up, they were adding more fire and they brought it, in the form of an airship and action! BRING ON THE SEQUEL!!!!!




Thefifthmusketeer -> Everybody below me is wrong! (minus a few) (23/10/2011 10:46:33 PM)

Ok, I'll admit I've seen only glances of the old films. But I was excited to see this and the film DID NOT let me down. Every actor played their role perfectly. My friend had never seen the other adaptations either and she also loved this version. If you think about it, what would it have been like if they had done what previous versions had done? It would have been boring obviously! Plot has already been done three other times so they brought something new into the mix. There was NOTHING wrong with this film. Nobody wants to except change and change is GOOD! It was no mess up, they were adding more fire and they brought it, in the form of an airship and action! BRING ON THE SEQUEL!!!!!




Timon -> RE: Everybody below me is wrong! (minus a few) (24/10/2011 1:57:58 PM)

Thanks for your input, Ms Jovovich.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Everybody below me is wrong! (minus a few) (24/10/2011 2:20:23 PM)

Yes the boring old films which made a load more money than this one ever will. 




Thefifthmusketeer -> Re:Re: Everybody below me is wrong (minus a few) (24/10/2011 9:32:20 PM)

It appeals to a younger audience then, seeing as both me and my friend are 18 and 19. And I have an open mind and it did say it was BASED on the Three Musketeers, it wasn't The Three Musketeers. Yes, I know you would say then how come it was called the three musketeers? what else are they gonna call it? DON'T ANSWER THAT, I know what most people who hate this are gonna say. And Andrew Davies is one heck of a good screenwriter anyway.




xxdelta -> RE: Re:Re: Everybody below me is wrong (minus a few) (26/10/2011 12:56:56 PM)

It was cringe-worthy but entertaining :)




S. C. Lee -> (17/3/2012 8:20:42 PM)

It's beyond stupid but the scenery and the scale of the thing is amazing. At one point Christoph Waltz pronounces the word penchant wrong, and no-one said anything, the director or ya'know, anyone :)




fightclubber954 -> (2/4/2012 10:23:52 PM)

worthless shite. a movie with fight scenes this big should be at least moderately entertaining. maybe it worked in the cinema but its boring on dvd




duncansby -> Truly Awful (27/6/2012 8:05:54 AM)

Messy plot, terrible acting. The worst film I've seen in a long time and Logan Lerman has obviously been attending the Hayden Christensen school of charisma free acting. Come on empire, you've given two stars to much better films than this




norgizfox -> The Three Musketeers (23/12/2012 2:10:24 AM)

It does a good job of playing fast and fun with Alexandre Dumas' novel, but The Three Musketeers adds nothing new to the tale to make any more interesting, nor does have enough 17th century class to match it's cartoony silly tone.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.347656E-02