Rating: 
Summary: Not as bad as some say
Review: OK, this isn't the best movie I've ever seen, in fact, far from it. It entertained me with a rental however, and I have no huge problems with it. The acting isn't anything great by far, but I don't need award winning acting in every movie I see. Maybe I just like bad movies, who knows. The fight scenes are not realistic, but than again I don't watch movies to see stuff that I see every day. I watch movies to see things that cant happen, but somehow seems to work within this film. All in all, not anything to call home about, but its good enough for me.
Rating:
Summary: A Viewer from Southern Maryland
Review: Not a great movie, perhaps not even all that memorable (as either really good or really bad). But it is certainly not as bad as some of the reviews on this site would have you believe. I suspect that those who have the worst to say were expecting something much more. If that's the case, see Michael York et al in the two-parter - "The Three Musketeers" and "The Four Musketeers." With regard to "The Musketeer" - Pros: lush scenery, lots of acrobatics (some unintentionally funny); Cons: wooden acting - there's something about a Mid-West American accent that doesn't quite fit in a movie set in 17th-century France, a really poor adaptation of the Dumas novel coupled to a script that really doesn't keep the viewer hooked. But if you're looking for a throw-away evening in front of the TV and you've got good company, a bowl of popcorn, and are ready to laugh, then you could do worse than "The Musketeer." Perhaps I should have waited until it went down in price, but I don't regret the [money]I spent to buy the DVD. In summary: my wife and daughter were bored, I didn't think it was all that great, but my two teenage sons and I had a good couple of laughs.
Rating: 
Summary: You've seen it before....no really you have
Review: The Musketeer is just the same as the 3 Musketeer story that has been told over about 6 to 8 times already. All of those a better than this although The Musketeer has a few entaining sword battles at least and Tim Roth is good as the villain. Although Tim Roth's villain with the eye patch has been seen before and is nothing new. Michael Wincott was very good in the same role in the Disney 3 Musketeers film too. Plus the end fight between Justin Chambers and Tim Roth involving ladders is kind of entertaining but it makes you wonder why all those ladders are even there though. If they were gonna make yet another one, they could of at least offered an original story. The Iron Mask wasn't fantastic but at least it gave the Musketeers something new to do.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't buy it !! This is not a movie, but a joke in the dark!
Review: The picture is dark, and so dark that sometimes you can't even see the movie !!
This is incredible, actors are speaking like if they were reading their text. No emotion, no feeling !
What a deception !!
Rating:
Summary: INCREDIBLE... that it actually made it to a theatre that is!
Review: I just rented the video, and didn't really know much about the movie, but I thought the plot sounded interesting, and with some acrobatic swashbuckling it couldn't be all bad.As I watched it, I became well aware of how much more should go into a movie. Someone in the studio was "asleep at the switch". Funny how a young boy (about 9-years old) with a very British accent can spend 14-years being raised by a Frenchman, and wind-up with an almost twangy American accent. He sounded as if he couldn't even pronounce his own name correctly, and sometimes forgot what it was. At the very start, this made it difficult to take anything afterwards very seriously. I actually got up to see if it was released as a network "Movie of the Week" rather than a theatre release--- it just had that "low budget" feel to it. I agree with many other reviewers, that the plot really dragged, everyone seemed to have very little emotion (in what should have been a very intense environment). There was very little involvement between D'Artagnan and the rest of the Musketeers... there was almost no development of that relationship to have predicted the support (and massive sacrifice) they made at the very end. So much more could have been done with this. There was also too many odd camera angles and "wild scrambling action", which made it difficult to see what was happening. They wasted no time in doing this sort of thing either... at the start, I couldn't believe the parents died with such little effort by Febre (one quick "swish" and the father died, one apparently massive kick and the mother died, but the little boy took a lot and was barely harmed). I couldn't really tell what was going on, and didn't know for sure the parents had died until I saw the graves. When the young D'Artagnan sliced Febre's face at the start, the camera angle was almost completely blocked from behind Febre's cloak... I thought the cameraman had dropped the camera or something. I suppose this was for artistic effect, but it would have been nice to actually see what was happening. About the wire tricks... I can live with a little, but it started getting a little overdone. During the rope scene and the ladder scene, I felt I was watching a remake of Peter Pan, and expected D'Artagnan to simply start flying or casting some magical spells. This would have actually made it more interesting. If you want to see a more believable movie, with passion, emotion, good plot development, respectable acting, and "edge of your seat" intensity as an "underdog" rises against a corrupt authority, then I suggest you see "ROB ROY" (1995). It also has lots of swashbuckling with Tim Roth, but is a much, much better film!
Rating:
Summary: Completely Awful
Review: This may not be the worst movie ever made but it's the worst I've seen in a long time. The tired premise will be instantly recognisable to anyone who's ever watched the Saturday Kung-Fu movie special: a child who witnesses his parents' deaths at the hand of an evil-doer gets trained in martial arts by his father's master and then sets out to avenge the bad, finding love and renown along the way. Setting this plot in 16th century France is not necessarily a bad idea, but promoting it as any kind of adaptation of Dumas' _The Three Musketeers_ is utter hogwash. Some of the character names are the same is all, and it does D'Artangnan and co. a great disservice to associate them with this ... . The performances are wooden, perhaps due to the utterly unmoving and meaningless script, which features numerous unnecessary lines intended to cover up that nothing is actually happening here. Justin Chambers, in particular, has no sense of timing, but rushes into every line as though he can't bear to have anyone else speaking. The action segments are overdone and most of them are filmed in such dark environments that you can't tell what's going on anyway. Attention to detail is non-existent, as in the case of the near-foundered horse who ten minutes and a journey halfway across France later is ready to charge into battle. I generally am soft on any movie that features swords and good costumes, but not even those elements can make this travesty worth viewing. Skip it!
Rating:
Summary: swill & swine, grub & grog, whip me, beat me
Review: Shame, sorrow, and scandal for any professional mildly associated with the production of the "fall form grace" film. Gasp as stars impersonate actors, scribblers pass as screen writers, and producers/directors kiss... of every barnyard beast known to the pre-industrial revolutionary world. Even a passel of eleven year old kids would yuck at this. The smell of shunk spirit permeates from the get-go. The cinematography looks like some color wash from a 4th world country - sploshy, dense, and foggy. The script - junior high romance. The action - cut, diced, sliced, and forgetable. Can I say more bad? The worse movie I've seen in years. Customers should be paid to walk out and throw copies of it away. An insult to the integrity of anything remotely called ART. Proof there is no bottom to the well actors drink from. Save your bucks. Read the classic book from a local library.
Rating:
Summary: Fluff and Drivel: Perfect waste of film
Review: With a "pert near" absence of plot, acting, and storyline, Musketeer falls flat on its face. What looks to be a pseudo-copy of the Disney version with Oliver Platt et al, is a hopeless effort with truly awful screenwriting, character development, and fight scenes that imploy so much cloth and whirling that it's impossible to tell who ever gets wounded. I distinctly notice within the first five minutes, however, that the film was quite dead. Please don't make me ever watch a film where most actors have a British accent, but the lead actor mumbles along with an L.A. drawl. Please don't make the mistake of renting this movie: save your money, watch the Disney version instead, which should rent for about a buck at your local video store. You'll thank me for it someday.
Rating:
Summary: ugh!
Review: I'm not sure who I am more dissapointed in: the lead actor or the director. Maybe I am too used to watching actors who know how to deliver their lines, but clearly Justin Chambers does not. The utter lack of passion in his delivery gave me the impression that the director wanted him to read his lines as quickly as he could in order to get the movie over with as soon as possible. I don't blame him.
Rating:
Summary: One for all, and all for blah!
Review: I love swashbuckling movies. There are far too few made now so it is always with excitment when one is. But in the end this adaptation just does not come through. Tim Roth is excellent as the villain. Stephen Rhea has some good moments as the Cardinal. But they never really let him shine. Porthos was a rare find in this film, he had most of the best lines.
D'Artangan is too American to really work, he was a CK model after all.
The action scenes were poorly done, the fencing bad and the wirework way too obvious. It just does not work well. I hope they continue to make films with flashy swordplay and all the things that make us like a good old adventure film. But sadly this one is not it.
|
