Rating: 
Summary: Yeah, it's pretty bad.
Review: A lamentable adaptation of the classic "Three Musketeers" saga. This film looks stylish, but is appallingly dreadful in its cliche-ridden script and clumsy execution... To begin with, trash all hope of seeing Alexandre Dumas's grand story in a millennial revamp -- the script takes such liberties with the original material that we should consider ourselves lucky they remembered to call the hero D'Artagnan. The big deal with this film is supposed to be the Hong Kong-style "wire works" action scenes, which were choregraphed by Xin-Xin Xiong, of "Crouching Tiger" fame... Well, there is no dragon hidden in these sequences -- they are both kinetically flat and a distracting anachronism: I don't think the French palace guard ran up the side of buildings, ninja style... so why pretend they did? This movie is full of failed attempts at wackiness and bonhomie... Pity poor Stephen Rea and Tim Roth who, as the bad guys, had to attempt to carry this film all on their own. Zzzzzzzzzz.
Rating: 
Summary: it's a fun movie
Review: First off, don't begin watching this movie with high expectations; if you heard the plot was ludricous then you heard right. However, this movie is just a fun, popcorn-eating, Sunday afternoon flick. Every movie can't be excessivly good, otherwise there would be no point for the Oscars. The atmosphere is fantastic; from the settings to the lighting. The fight scenes are just as they are adverstise; hong kong meets western, and nothing more. And to those who play up the fact that these scenes are inept, wake up---they're supposed to be mindless fun...nothing more....just watch it.
No, this movie is not anything like Rob Roy...the two are complete opposites; one was a serious drama and the other is a fun action piece; they shouldn't even be compared to eachother. Now if you are watchin these movie because you liked the book, then you will be dissapointed. However, the novels storyline only provides a backdrop the "new" story and the action, so don't get mad if it doesn't follow the novel because it's not supposed to. (If ya want a good Dumas movie go rent the new Monte Cristo with Guy Pearce). Just to pound the fact in more....if ya take this as a fun movie you will enjoy it.
Rating:
Summary: As Bad As It's Said To Be
Review: "The Musketeer" is one of the worst films that I've ever sat through. I can't really say that I was disappointed with the movie. I had read the reviews here before seeing it. I really just wanted to see it for myself out of idle curiosity. Well, you know how the saying goes---"Curiosity killed the cat." What does baffle me though is that I've actually read reviews by people who seem to be under the impression that if someone hates this movie, it's merely because it isn't faithful to Dumas' novel. Trust me, folks. This one is bad on its own. It doesn't have to be compared to any book in order to get a bad review. I watched this movie with someone else who has never read any of Dumas' work and he agreed with me entirely that the movie was garbage. It is bad in every possible way. The acting is bad. The writing is bad. The camera work and lighting is bad. If nothing else though I have learned something from this experience. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. In the future, I'm not going to let idle curiosity get the better of me and when a movie gets as many negative reviews as this one has, I'm going to stay away from it.
Rating:
Summary: terrible
Review: Dumas would turn over in his grave. The story is terrible and where or where is the infamous Milady Dewinter (a central character). Don't bother.
Rating: 
Summary: Uhhhh... Umm... There is little to like about this movie...
Review: But I can't bring myself to give it only one star. Probably because the fight coriographer seemed to put so mush effort into the thing... too bad most of the fight scenes were either too dark to see what was going on, or badly shot making the fight scenes a confusing mess. Anyway, I was actually going to write a much longer review of this movie, but there is no way I could do better than wild_man_dave from Austin who said just about all that needed to be said. The only thing that I want to add is that if you are a fan of the Musketeer books like I am the only way you will ever enjoy this movie (even as a cheesy action) is to make sure you see this movie as having no connection what so ever to the Musketeer books.
Rating:
Summary: Everybody Lighten Up- This Movie is Fun
Review: I can't believe the whining of most of the other reviewers. No, "The Musketeer" is not a classic- it has flaws. Yes, Justin Chambers is not Errol Flynn or Burt Lancaster. But this movie is fun. I first saw "the Musketeer" after reading so many negative reviews and wasn't expecting much, but about half way through, I was beginning to enjoy it. What is the definitive filming of Dumas' "The Three Musketers?" The Michael York version was a little too silly, Charlie Sheen et al was a curious version, the Gene Kelley version was filmed as a musical (but without singing). What about about the Ritz Brothers and Walter Abel versions? Point being, "The Three Musketeers" has never been filmed properly. That being said, "The Musketeers" is a fun movie if you take it on it's own terms. The fighting is fresh, the music is appropriatly schmaltzy (despite what some people say, stirring movie music is not always derivative of John Williams- nor is it his eminent domain) and Tim Roth makes a fine villain. "The Mask of Zorro" was a movie to really enjoy a few years ago. Although certainly not in that league, "The Musketeer" can be a lot of fun if you just lighten up. Grab some popcorn and enjoy. It's a movie, not a literary treatise.
Rating:
Summary: Crap
Review: ... This is by far the worst so-called adaptation of Alexandre Dumas classic.
...Let me describe each character: Dartagnan is a young playboy, foolish in spirit who wonders around here and there rushing into fights without reason or purpose. Porthos...an english accent Porthos? Dull looking without any presence at all? POLITE Porthos???? Come on.. did this guys read the book? Aramis? Whats this? A gay, gypsy looking Aramis? Pathetic.. and who is the actor that plays him? Terrible! Athos? .... Athos was a drunk and nothing but that? Again... read the book! Athos was a very strong presence in the book, here... hes just part of the scenery. The only good actor i saw here was Tim Roth, ...he plays the role very nicely,... Cardinal Richeliau... well.. no comments here.. as he gone completely numb.. or somekind of gay? [Poor] acting from a very respectable actor unfortunately. The plot is terrible, nothing to do with the book, the 3 musketeers are a joke, adding nothing to the movie that centers around Dartagnan and noone else. And last, but not least... the fighting sequences. ... the fightings were ridiculous...
Rating:
Summary: Drama? No. Adventure? Not really. Comedy? Oh YES!
Review: As soon as the credits begin at the start of this movie(accompanied by the most awful attempts at heroic-sounding music and cheesy graphics), you know you're not going to be seeing a great movie. Aside from the oft-mentioned lack of chasing of the escaping carraige by the guards, there are several other parts in this movie that just don't make sense. My personal favorite: D'Artagnan gets away on a carraige with some compatriots, while being chased by Tim Roth and his men on horses. Inventive as always, D'Artagnan explodes some gun powder barrels on a stone bridge after his group passes over it. Despite the fact that the explosion almost instantaneously becomes a 6-inch high little smoker, leaving the bridge completely intact, Tim Roth and his men all stop. Tim and D'Artagnan exchange the evil eye, but, no! Tim Roth cannot follow! His horse could not possibly jump over the smoke, nor could it simply ride through. The acting, as well as the plot, is dreadful. How did Mena Suvari get into this picture? Is it because she says her lines with as much expression as a head of a lettuce? Looks even more out of place in a period movie than Leonardo did in Titanic?
Justin Chambers is a miserable D'Artagnan, and his character is completely mauled, like everyone else. I cannot think of a single character in this movie that is unchanged from the book. Even though this movie is a deplorably bad interpretation of book, it is also a deplorable waste of film. Did anyone in this movie actually think they were doing something intelligent? Despite all this, I actually had an immensely fun time watching it just because there is so much to make fun of. So, if you haven't seen it, I would recommend seeing it once because it's such a [poor] movie that it really comes off as quite amusing.
Rating: 
Summary: This Movie Is Beautiful
Review: I admit it, the plot is sloppy, music is plain, some characters are feeble;HOWEVER,just as the poster suggests, the light and shade trick makes many scenes painting-like;Moreover,Justin and Mena constitute such a ravishing pair;and the fighting,oh the fighting,which is the first-time Western rendering of Eastern martial art,worths the ticket. Believe me,this movie is whole lot better than many 4 stars and 3 stars movies listed in Amazon.
Rating:
Summary: The Re-Vision Thing
Review: Peter Hyams explains his version of the oft-told Dumas tale as a "re-vision" of The Three Musketeers. (The hyphen in the word "re-vision" is not mine, it is included in all the accompanying literature associated with the Miramax release. Mr. Hyams does not explain why the story needs to be re-vised. Yet, after dozens of works of fiction, including stage, movie, television, radio drama, pantomime, ballet, orchestral works and point-of-purchase candy bar display racks, somehow Hollywood has determined that what keeps this classic swashbuckling product from selling is its story. So it gets re-vised. God save us all from the re-vision thing.
Just to bring you up on the Hyams version of the story: D'Artagnan, the only son of a retired Gascon musketeer, is orphaned as a boy, as his celebrated father is just beginning to teach him the ultra-deadly Hong Kong style of epée swordsmanship that once made the old musketeer famous fighting for Charles IV against the Yakuza. Both D'Artagnan's parents are killed before his very eyes by the evil Tim Roth and his faction of cardinalist guards. Tim Roth, who ranks with Phyllis Diller's characterization in The Bugaloos as a Saturday morning cartoon villain, might better be remembered for his identical role in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves, in which he masticated entire soundstages and set pieces before this reviewer's horrified eyes, and performed the most offensive rape scene ever perpetrated by a major Hollywood release.
This D'Artagnan is an orphan, who is raised by his father's servant Planchet. This Planchet is a master demolitions expert and Chinese-style swordsman, who, while disguised as Noel Redding from the Jimi Hendrix Experience, teaches D'Artagnan everything he needs to know about being a musketeer. This apparently would include how to fight when suspended from a guy wire, how to attach an German epée guard and hilt to a Chinese sword, and how to passably mimic either a French or British accent. It is only this last skill that eludes D'Artagnan before it his time for him to seek his fortune in Paris and meet M. de Treville, captain of the king's musketeers.
This M. Treville is a doddering old fool, whose musketeers are in disgrace after they are framed for doing the exact kind of thing the American CIA was doing in Central and South America during the 1960s and 1970s. After meeting the sodden Porthos and Aramis, whose characters in this "re-vision" have been reduced to one-dimensional mercenaries straight out of the movie ConAir, this D'Artagnan find lodgings with this M. Bonacieux - who is the uncle of the pretty young Bonacieux this time around. I can't find a more likely reason for this plot change than to make M. Bonacieux more repulsive, but Bill Treacher does a fair job of that on his own. The pretty young Bonacieux (played by young ingenue Mena Suvari with all the emotional depth of a Clinique ad) now has the given name of Francesca and is of Spanish descent this time around, also is now unmarried and is on the cover of Cosmo for reasons that escape me.
Several key characterizations are absent in the three famous musketeers themselves. They are drunken, ill-disciplined, scheming and without respect to women, true enough, but here their similarities to the Dumas characters end. That is where the characters themselves end, since they are given no courage, no thirst for justice, and no unwavering loyalty to king and to France that made them so compelling in the first place. Instead, we have in all of the musketeers generally, a sort of defeated rabble to be roused by D'Artagnan's youthful idealism.
Cardinal Richelieu (Stephen Rea, "you mean they really couldn't get Tim Curry again?"), the classic arch villain and traditionally the venomous creature at the center of this classic web of action and intrigue, has been reduced to an impotent second banana when faced with Tim Roth's over-the-top LeFebre.
(LeFebre? LeFebre? the critic and student of French popular literature cries as he thumbs through his dog-eared translation of The Three Musketeers, finally realizing that this character, the central villain, doesn't even exist in the book! And why should he, really, when there are already a number of villains and ne'er-do-wells who would serve just as well? )
Gone is Jussac. Gone is Lady Clarik De Winter, and the main motivation for Athos and D'Artagnan. Rochefort is a walk-on, dust beneath the feet of this impostor LeFebre. Gone is the romantic intrigue between Lord Buckingham and Queen Anne. D'Artagnan has no internal turmoil over being infatuated with the wife of his landlord, since she's now his niece, quite available, and willing. Gone is the story.
Gone is the action, too; largely due to Hyams shooting all fight scenes from the torso up, which makes it impossible to figure out and who is actually fighting whom. A potentially brilliant piece of combat business involving sword combat while perched atop, and occasionally leaping from, 25-foot tall ladders becomes tedious and poorly realized, like a scene out of MacGyver. Justin Chambers is given lines that would embarrass the writers of Who's the Boss? and everything involving battle from a carriage was lifted nearly shot by shot from Stagecoach.
The Musketeer is not entirely without merit, although specific examples of where that might be true elude me. Costumes and weapons are noticeable in their tawdriness, and what should be an important state dinner honoring the presence of Lord Buckingham in the court of Louis XIII looks more like the $50-a-plate Royale Banquet deal at your local renaissance festival. (And when is Hollywood going to realize that a four-pound cannon does not shoot an incendiary firework that makes its victims do cartwheels on impact? It shoots molten-hot grapeshot, a particularly deadly cluster of projectiles that goes through the victim's flesh, carving its victims into small, difficult-to-identify pieces.) However, since the screenplay did away with the entire plot and characters of its original material, it's a pretty easy story for the average 8 year old to follow, so it does have that going for it.
|
