Rating: 
Summary: Just a technical note...
Review: I can't add anything to the numerous enthusiastic reviews ahead of me, but I did want to warn the buyer that though the DVD video transfer of both titles was magnificently done, the sound track from the Four Musketeers appears to have been taken from a damaged original--the dolby 2-channel stereo had long stretches of unpleasant boominess except on low volume. I hope on the next release the studio can remix the soundtracks to multichannel (the action in these films will work great with it) and fix the quality of the 4M track. And I take to heart what the hearing-impaired reviewer said: don't forget those subtitles and narrations...
Rating:
Summary: "The Three Musketeers/The Four Musketeers""
Review: This movie is one of those films where the audience gets the impression that the lead actors and actresses had as much fun filming this, in spite of what happens to their characters, as the audience has watching the story. It is very well worth watching, The amount of social and prop detail that went into this production is wonderful. My only disappointment was that, after a bit of research, "The Three Musketeers" in the DVD set didn't seem to be available in widescreen at the time of my order.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the best ediions of this classic story on film!
Review: This film, aside from being one of the most faithful and best cast versions of the Musketeers story by Dumas I can remember seeing, is a Rembrandt painting that moves! With VERY faithful costuming and better than average cinematography, there is also a realism and wit to it that few previous versions had. The only standout as a concession to Hollywood thinking in the cast is plastic Richard Chamberlain as Aramis, kind of a peripheral character to begin with. Another criticism is a blasphemous throwaway scene involving a mental case with a smudge pot on his head in the middle of the film.The actor to watch in this film is Oliver Reed, whose Athos is the center of the film and the small Musketeer band that is the center of the story itself. The rest of the cast is a quintessential 70's A-list of actors: Faye Dunaway, still hot as a pistol after "Bonnie & Clyde" and "The Thomas Crown Affair" plays the scheming Lady De Winter; Raquel Welch, in what is her best movie to date, plays a bumbling, funny Constance Boniceur; Simon Ward, two years off of "Young Winston" plays the Duke of Buckingham; Michael York, whose "Logan's Run" and "Murder On The Orient Express" made him a star shortly before this movie plays the young d'Artagnan; Frank Finlay, an obscure actor who nonetheless lets his hamminess make for an enjoyably vain Porthos; Charlton Heston as Cardinal Richilieu, (good casting,); Geraldine Chaplin, (Charlie's daughter,) as Queen Anne; Christopher Lee as Rocheforte and Richard Lester's trademark repertoire man, Roy Kinnear, as Blanchet. They all come together to make a movie, (split into two for length,) that is without a doubt the best version of this story in wide release in the last forty years. This film has been hard to trace down for home video before this because it has been bandied about among a handful of obscure video releasing companies, but there's no way masterpieces like this could be lost forever. Snap it up before it disappears again!!
Rating:
Summary: The best of the lot
Review: First off, I love the story. Although I only recently read the novel, it story of D'Artagnan, Richelieu, Louis XIII, et al has been one of the most fascinating and thrilling stories I've ever experienced. While some of the older film adaptations were pretty good, and the 1993 version with Charlie Sheen and Oliver Platt among the cast was midly amusing.
However, the Richard Lester films by far are the most faithful adaptations, and they're most comical.
The humor is derived not so much from one-liners and witty dialogue such as that delivered by Platt in the later adaptation, although they do help. It is more of genuine clumsiness, mainly on the parts of Raquel Welch as Constance and Frank Finlay as Porthos and even Michael York as D'Artagnan. "Leave to Porthos to invent new ways to disarm himself" is one of the great movie lines of all-time, as it follows a sequence where the eccentric musketeer, in showing off a "new trick" in throwing his sword into an dummy fails to take into account the possibility that an armed enemy might deflect the strike, which Aramis (Richard Chamberlain) does with ease. The action is splendid, and the swordplay is the best of any movie of the genre. Finally, the characters are as realistic as they get. The musketeers, for example, are often clean and well taken care of. But in these films, as in Dumas' novel, they were one step ahead of the soup line - often gambling what little money they had to get a meal. One of the most amusing sequences comes when Aramis and Porthos stage a fight at a cafe, during which the four companions - along with D'Artagnan's servant, Planchet (Richard Kinnear), steal enough food and drink to get them through the night. The sets are fabalous, the costumes outstanding and even the background details seem authentic.
Don't settle for one, as The Four Musketeers isn't so much a sequel as it is a conclusion to Dumas' novel.
Rating: 
Summary: How to ruin one of the greatest movies of the 70s:
Review: Release it in Fullscreen. No further comment.
Rating:
Summary: Can't Say Enough Good Things About These Movies
Review: One scene in particular exemplifies why I like these movies. In "The Four Musketeers," troops are bombarding La Rochelle with cannon fire. We see a long line of cannons, each going off in sequence. In the foreground, we have a priest quietly blessing the cannons (in Latin, I think), and then between the cannons and the fortress, a herd of goats runs frantically along the line of the troops. There's always at least three things going on in any given scene, and many times unusual things. Many times, these elements represent (seemingly) contradicting ideas (war/peace/animal herding), and so there's a touch of surrealism to many of the scenes -- it takes a moment to sort out how you feel about what you are seeing. This lends itself to multiple viewings. Another note: this regards this advertised twin pack of The Three Musketeers/The Four Musketeers. I discovered that the credits in The Four Musketeers are in another language ... French, I believe. It also seems to me that perhaps the soundtrack is not quite synchronized with the rest of the film in some places (but that may be just my imagination)... But soundtrack anomalies don't bother to me with this film, as the visuals are the important thing with these films, and that is not spoiled at all. This was an odd thing, though, and I'd previously wondered why they were selling this twin pack at such a reduced cost ... there's your answer. Both films are still very enjoyable anyway, and I recommend not only getting the films but watching them many times, as you will see something new in them almost every time!
Rating:
Summary: A great interpretation of dumas novel. Full of humor and wit
Review: This is the best movie presentation of the Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas novel made thus far. Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, Charleton Heston, Michael York, and the attractive Faye Dunaway and Racquel Welch are just a few in this all star cast. The movie follows the novel quite well and the locations in France are spectacular. Most of all the dry wit and humor in these movies are hillarious and make them a gem to watch over and over again. Charleton Heston plays the evil Cardinal Richelieu, who barely puts up with the stupidity around him and is quite ambitious in power. Oliver Reed, Spike Milligan, Richard Chamberlain are Athos, Porthos and Aramis and Michael York is the eager to do well D'artagnon. Each of these actors are brilliant and very believeable to watch. In my opinion these are the movies that Dumas would enjoy, full of adventure, wit, comedy and some tradgedy that will keep you watching these over and over again.
Rating:
Summary: When Heroes were Dirty
Review: THE THREE and FOUR MUSKETEERS prove there was a time when big-budget spectaculars did not have to be stupid to be successful. The films are exceptional in many ways: George Macdonald Fraser's tightly condensed script actually improves on Dumas's prolix novel; the remarkable cast is made even more remarkable by the fact that not once does an oversized star presence dominate a scene; the direction and editing are both sharply controlled and imaginative; even the Achilles heel of Hollywood, the music, though written by two composers, is tastefully discreet. This superior execution makes the films smashing entertainment. What makes them distinctive is their rich sense of the past. This is more than just a welter of period details (some of which, in fact, are anachronistic). It is a matter of interweaving the evocative backgrounds with the story until they are inseparable. The filmmakers' vision of the 17th century is certainly beautiful when we would expect it, such as the scenes at court, a constantly moving, dizzying texture of silks, satins, brocades, damasks, pearls, diamonds, crystal, gold and marble. More importantly, the details are striking when we would *not* expect them to be, in scenes of ordinary life. A woman has her teeth pulled in public, a man sits innocently under a window when a bucket of slop is emptied on his head, sewage runs open in the street, beggars are everywhere and no one ever has clean fingernails. Even the rich and powerful are barely one step above the pervasive filth. These details, embedded in the very fabric of events, never slow things down or darken the film's light mood, they are just there, silently, slowly adding up to a persuasive recreation of the past. For example, in one conversation with d'Artagnan, Athos puts his hand to his mouth as he thinks, revealing the frayed, grimy cuff of his shirt. It looks as if it hasn't been washed in weeks. As a detail, it's nothing, but it speaks volumes about both Athos's lack of concern for his appearance and the tolerance for such slovenliness in an era when everything had to be washed by hand. (An activity we also see, incidentally.) Other filmmakers, particularly Pasolini, provided precedents for such raw period environments. The difference lies in the way Lester and company balance these details against the forward push of the story. (Pasolini tends to wallow in them.) This was the first of several period films directed by Richard Lester in the 1970s. All of them share the same fast pace, slapstick action, cynicism about heroics, lush design and radiant cinematography. Few have made it to video. Let's hope that changes.
Rating:
Summary: Definitive versions of classic adventure tales
Review: Everybody says it, and it's absolutely true. These two films are about as perfect as action/adventure filmmaking gets, with liberal doses of humor rounding out the swashbuckling. The cast is perfect and the screenplay by George Macdonald Fraser is a brilliant adaptation of the Dumas novel, full of period color and comedy. Richard Lester adds madcap visual gags and clever asides and directs the action sequences with tremendous style and flair. Fencers will tell you that these are the best swordfights ever filmed. Rejoice that these are available again on tape and DVD, and don't waste your time with the limp and phony Disney remake. You'll find something new to laugh or marvel at with every viewing. Should be required watching for all would-be epic film directors.
Rating:
Summary: Swashbuckling at its best!
Review: I saw these movies when I was a kid, and have continued watching them every chance I got. When I saw that they existed on DVD, I had to buy them. These are the very best of swashbuckling movies, with great actors and a fantastic scenery. Christopher Lee is fantastic as Rochefort and Michael York is a great D'Artagnan. Actually it is hard not to fill this review with praise for all the actors, because this is one of the rare movies where no actor was miscast! The best part is that all the characters seems real, not the ordinary action heroes, they fumble, they drop their weapons, everything done with good humour. This is two good movies that everyone should see, movies that gets better every year and tells present hollywood how good movies should be made.
|
