Rating: 
Summary: A bit questionable...
Review: I'm not even all the way through this movie yet and already I'm [upset] that I spent $3 to rent it. The acting is horrible, save for Tim Roth whose always great, and not-so-bad performances by Mena Suvari, Stephen Rea, and Catherine Deneuve. So really who does that leave? Justin Chambers. I can understand to a certain degree that he got the role with his pretty face to charm the women into sitting down in front of the screen, but damn...He's incapable of showing any emotion, and what emotion he does show is all in the same monotone voice. He's the only one who can't seem to pronounce his characters name, and his accent sounds suspiciously American for something based in France. Call me crazy, but it seems that in the 14 years between boyhood and young adult, poor D'Artagnan lost his accent. But never fear ladies, he takes of his shirt a couple times which apparently seems to make up for his lack of acting ability. As for the actual movie, I find it rather boring, and decidely so being that I'm writing this as I'm supposed to be watching it. I'm trying to tune out the incredibly elaborate, hollywood story and focusing on the action scenes because thats the only thing thats got my attention, and even that isn't so great, I've seen much better. Anyway, if you've got a few bucks burning a hole in your pocket, go ahead and rent this, give it a shot, I promise it won't hurt that bad. Now I guess I'll go ahead and finish watching this heap, I hear the final fight scene is truly *cough cough* amazing.
Rating: 
Summary: Not Bad, Not Bad At All...
Review: Cardinal Richelieu (Stephen Rea), in his quest to become the premier power in France, disbands the king's musketeers and does his best to wipe them out, discretely, of course. One of the musketeers killed was D'Artagnan's (Justin Chambers) father and D'Artagnan vows to avenge his father's death and kill the man in black (Tim Roth). D'Artagnan grows up and begins his quest for vengeance by traveling to Paris and contacting the musketeers. Unfortunately, he fails his test and instead finds himself aiding the Queen (Catherine Deneuve) in a desperate attempt to avoid war with Great Britain. Along the way, D'Artagnan falls in love with Francesca bon Ansau (Mena Suvari) and gradually earns the respect of the musketeers. I quite enjoyed this version of the Three Musketeers, but I would have to agree with other reviewers in that it is not the best version that I have seen. The strength of this movie is the amazing fighting sequences. Whether it is a barroom brawl with the fighters dancing over barrels, an attempt to take over the Queen's coach that leaps from coach to horse to ground, or a winner take all fight on ropes and ladders, the fighting sequences are fresh, original and oftentimes, simply amazing. The costumes and scenery were gorgeous, with the director Peter Hymans' fabulous use of natural light to give the whole film a faded, sepia toned look that really suited the time period. The supporting cast was quite good, including a deliciously evil man in black played by Tim Roth and an understated, yet humorous musketeer trio played by Nick Moran (Aramis), Steven Spiers (Porthos) and Jan Gregor Kremp (Athos). The absolute worst part of the film was Justin Chambers, who, unfortunately played D'Artagnan and was in just about every scene. It is true that Justin, a ex-Calvin Klein model, is quite beautiful, at least he is without that ridiculous long hair that he sported in the film, and it it also true that he is quite athletic and did a fine job on his stunt work, but, sadly, he cannot act and he cannot speak French. This is a major problem in the film and drags the whole work down. With a decent actor in the lead role, this could have been a very memorable version of a classic.
Rating:
Summary: DITTO DAVID LITTON
Review: Mr. Litton's review is so much of what I would have said, I can only say read his and you'll get my opinion as well. Should have been much better!!!
Rating:
Summary: Musketeer is the "Attack of the Clones" of swashbucklers....
Review: ...in many ways. Just like Lucas' epic, this movie has many strengths, including beautiful costumes and scenery, a nice score, some great action scenes, and a fine supporting cast. But it also has similar flaws: two miscast leads with limited acting ability, and poorly written and directed dialogue throughout. There's just no chemistry on screen between the hero and heroine, and so much of the dialogue sounds choppy, anachronistic, overly formal and unnatural. That being said, this is an absolutely GORGEOUS movie to look at. The conscious use of subdued, natural lighting throughout makes you feel like you've stepped right into a 16th century Dutch painting. Because of that sparse lighting, I'm sure this movie wouldn't look that good on VHS, but on DVD, this nice crisp anamorphic print looks wonderful, especially on a widescreen TV. The set designs and costumes are superb, and the lush cinematography of both urban and rural landscapes is breathtaking. As far as the action scenes, well, it's an interesting experiment at mixing Hong Kong action with traditional Western swashbucklers. A couple of the action scenes are fantastic, particularly the thrilling, creative swordfight on the ropes hanging down from the castle tower---wonderfully imaginative and well-filmed. Then again, the final ladder scene is completely ripped off from Once Upon a Time in China, and there are a couple places in the movie where the hero performs some slightly wire-assisted leaps, and those really just look out of place. Like Attack of the Clones or Phantom Menace, this movie will always be a bit of a guilty pleasure for me. I can't say it's a great movie overall, but there were undeniably some VERY talented people involved in making this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?
Review: Lord, have mercy. This is one of the most stupid movies I have ever seen. The plot is weak. Even Tim Roth can't save this movie from being silly mostly because of the leading man and the action sequences. Firstly, Justin Chambers is a terrible lead. Maybe he's pretty, but he can't act! I have no idea how such a bad actor got the leading part. He is completely unconvincing and has no charisma whatsoever. I didn't even care about the character and I found myself rooting for Roth. Some people say that the action sequences are spectacular. Well, to me they are stupid and irrational. I mean, what the hell is this? Does nobody care about realism? D'Artagnan is fighting with a european sabre Kung Fu/Jackie Chan style! I have no idea how somebody could come up with such an idiotic idea. Don't get me wrong - I love Kung Fu flicks, but putting in Hong Kong action in a costume drama in 17th century France is ridiculous! You might as well cast Jackie Chan as King Arthur! To sum up, this movie is just plain bad. If want to watch a good Musketeer film, then watch Richard Lester's. The fights are choreographed by William Hobbs, a EUROPEAN FENCING choreographer.
Rating: 
Summary: What's so Bad?
Review: So many of the review really slam this movie - and for what? Compared to the Disney version, which admittedly has better jokes, this is wonderful. Are jokes that important. It is not sheer Holywood, true, but why is that so bad? People in a big city talk with different kinds of accents. How would an English speaker be able to understand the difference between upper class Paris, lower class Paris, and countrified French? Honest, fun, and sincere. Get it!
Rating:
Summary: WANTED: NEW CASTING DIRECTOR
Review: It's must be awfully hard to mess up a screen adaptation from a great novelist like Alexander Dumas, but here they somehow managed. I hate to sound so cynical, but here goes: The singlemost thing that really ruined this movie for me was the acting... (or lack thereof) This is what you get when you cast a pretty-boy model who's never acted before and expect him to carry the film in a lead role. The rest of the actors were unknowns or hardly-knowns who didn't perform much better than he did. Even the prestigious roles of Porthos, Athos, and Aramis were demoted down to bit parts and played by extras... Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration, but were you familiar with any one of those actors who were playing the Musketeers?
What prevented this movie from being a total disaster was the cool action scenes plus the magnificent scenery and locales. Still though, it has to be one of the worst musketeer films ever. If you do decide to watch it, just imagine talented famous actors playing the parts and it won't be so bad after all.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most incompetently directed movies I've ever seen
Review: Whatever happened to Peter Hyams? Sure, he was never a great director, but at least he always was a reliable craftsman. Here, not unlike Frankenheimer when directing `The Island of Dr. Moreau', he seems to have thrown all of his experience and talent out of the window, not bothering with continuity, consistency, characterization, or any kind of properly developed plot: - Lighting varies from shot to shot; angles and camera positions never match up. The editing thus seems incredibly amateur and choppy. - None of the accents make any kind sense, some characters speak English with French accents, some speak with American accents and some speak with COCKNEY accents. - Hyams (doing double duty as director and DP) doesn't employ any kind of superficial light sources, relying solely on ambient lighting of torches, windows, etc. While this may be fine for an intimate drama, documentary or other independent film, it is FATAL for a swashbuckler. Many scenes are dreadfully underexposed, making it virtually impossible to enjoy or even follow many of the fight scenes, which by the way are shamelessly plagiarized from Xiong Xin Xin's previous work. Hyams couldn't light a bloody birthday cake! - David Arnold's excellent score, the film's ONLY saving grace, is mangled in editing and mixed so low that it is reduced to a mere ambience sound. Again, a FATAL artistic decision for a swashbuckler. - The writing by Gene Quintano is ATROCIOUS. Full of anachronisms and idiotic dialogue worthy of Lucas' prequel trilogy (`Don't look at me like that.' - `Those eyes...' - `They are the only eyes I have.'), it mangles Dumas' classic story like there is no tomorrow. Oh well, what else could one expect from the writer of 'Sudden Death', 'Operation Dumbo Drop' and 'Loaded Weapon 1', not to mention two 'Police Academy' sequels? Anyway, this is one of the worst movies of the last few years. Be ashamed, Peter Hyams. Be very ashamed.
Rating:
Summary: Not worthy
Review: The Musketeer could have been so good. The locations and sets are so beautiful and there are some beautiful fight scenes. However, those fight scenes are a part of the problem. Wire action is used, but instead of the beautiful grace of Chinese wire actions movies, the action here is a little too speedy and choppy. Also a lot of the fight scenes include moves that seem unnecessarily flashy and impractical--for example, doing a full split on two barrels while fighting a swordsman. Just unnecessary. I think the director wanted the audience to say, "Cool!", but instead they just say, "Huh?" Another bad point is the acting. There are no good performances in this movie. Everyone seems to be reading their lines. All of the parts are miscast. The heros have no charisma, and the villians have no menace. Another thing that really bothered me was that half the actors have American accents and half have French accents. I don't have anything against either accent, but I would like to see some consistency.
Rating:
Summary: Where is the rest of the film?
Review: GREAT FILMS: The director/producers take the time to ensure the movie looks good, plays good, sounds good, and spins the audience into its web of wonder. All scenes are intact, with all pickup shots (close-ups, transitionary moments, shots of what the actor is looking at, shots of things unseen by the regular camera that are neccessary to let the audience know what is going unseen). THE MUSKETEER is not a great film. It is a good film that is missing many elements that could have made it a GREAT film. THE MUSKETEER is an interesting movie with nice - yeah just NICE - action sequences. Much more could have been accomplished as I found that these "action" scenes were fairly predictable. The acting is decent yet could have used a little more gusto. The characters seem to take way too many things for granted, leaving much unexplained in the sense that everyone knows all about the reasoning behind the motivation and why things are happening... This portrays the entire cast as shallow vessels, and opens up the can of worms reminding the audience that this is JUST a movie. I believe the following problems lead to the boredom I found myself enraptured within while viewing the second and third parts of the film (even though the beginning was pretty lame). THE SCORE. Where is the thrill? I believe that with a much better score that drove the action and story, this film could have been much better. THE MISSING SCENES. Near the middle of the film it is hinted that the lead, D'ARTAGNAN, has a history with his horse. We have seen no evidence of this. The writers and directors could have incorporated a short scene showing how D'artagnan bonds with the horse who becomes a companion and friend to him. The first time we see the horse, he is tagged to the back of the wagon fighting to keep up as they race away from the bad guys. There are also several moments - pick ups - that are missing. I think the director went after a "Quick CUT" style for this movie to keep the action flowing. This film, however, is not suited for such a drastic style. Transitions and little things that are missing throw the audience off guard, as we are suddenly in the midst of another scene of dialogue or action. This happens too many times throughout the film and makes me wonder if they just ran out of time/budget and cut together what was done and left it at that. NOT A GOOD THING. THE DVD EXTRAS. Laughable. Redundant. Laughable. Redundant. There is the "Production notes" which are simply a type-up of all the words spoken in all of the video extras which include, "Casting Justin Chambers" - a sixty second clip of the model-turned-actor talking about the movie and how it was a great experience. Then there is "The Stunts" - a less than five minute dialogue with the director talking about the wonders of the Stunt Coordinator, with nearly all of the "Casting Justin Chambers" footage clipped in as filler. The "Theatrical Trailer" is amusing in how they sliced and diced the more interesting aspects of the film into a promo piece that outshines the film itself. And why in the world do they bother to put "Widescreen anamorphic format" on there anyway? It is NOT an extra. It is the format of the film that - in my opinion - should be the only format they allow. A good film? Yeah.
A great experience? No.
A good plot? Sure.
Good sound? Heck NO!
A good rental? Maybe...
Should you buy it? I do not encourage you.
All for one and one for all? Nope. Overall, 3 stars is a generous rating. I enjoyed moments of this film. I am glad I did not waste my money in the theatres watching it. This is a film that had great potential but became a shallow, empty tale due to shoddy sound, editing, and lack of thoroughness.
|
