Directed by:
Paul W.S. AndersonCinematography:
Glen MacPhersonComposer:
Paul HaslingerCast:
Logan Lerman, Matthew Macfadyen, Ray Stevenson, Milla Jovovich, Luke Evans, Mads Mikkelsen, Christoph Waltz, Gabriella Wilde, Orlando Bloom, Juno Temple (more)VOD (5)
Plots(1)
Based on Alexandre Dumas’ classic novel comes a big-screen action adventure update of the Three Musketeers, conceived and shot in state-of-the-art 3D. They are known as Porthos, Athos, and Aramis - three elite warriors who serve the King of France as his best Musketeers. After discovering an evil conspiracy to overthrow the King, the Musketeers come across a young, aspiring hero - D’Artagnan - and take him under their wing. Together, the four embark on a dangerous mission to foil the plot that not only threatens the Crown, but the future of Europe itself. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (27)
Reviews (9)
In his modern interpretation, "Paul W. S. Anderson honors the realities of the story and intends his modern rendition to approach the narrative quality of the original literary work." I laughed again at the official distributor text. I will admit, though, that these Three Musketeers are better the second time around than the first time. The second time around, I knew what to expect - unprecedented, but quite entertaining stupidity with airship fights, action scenes that beat anything from Anderson's Resident Evil, likable heroes and beautiful cleavage... namely women. Why not?
()
The Three Musketeers is a visually beautiful and rich spectacle in which lovers of eye-candy will find their own. In terms of story and acting, however, it is pure average. I don't exactly do a double take on the pompous and arrogant Musketeer talk, of which there was a serious abundance. Of the actors, I was most impressed by the great Christoph Waltz as Cardinal Richelieu and the funniest character was Planchet.
()
These Three Musketeers are something completely different than you would expect. And that’s actually a good thing. After all, what good would it do me to watch the same story over and over again, just with different actors? This story is always taken very seriously not only from a historical point of view and at times gets quite romantic. Anderson took the originally story, fucked around with it, gave it a thrashing, abused it and this is the result – a completely zany ride which makes no sense whatsoever but entertains. And that’s the most important thing. You must take it as entertainment, not as a historical tale. Then it works, and rather well at that. The actors also understood this and I must say that I had quite a good time with them. I laughed and got to see the musketeers as a bonus.
()
Unlike most other users, I actually quite liked the 1993 version. If nothing else, it had quality action and a top-notch cast. But that’s the core of the problem, that version was a grandiose and high-budget production that had great ambitions but ultimately failed, as it did not meet the expectations of die-hard fans of the book and previous films. This current version has no ambitions, other than entertain, and the audience, for sure this time, did not expect anything at all – logically, they could not have been disappointed. If we truly look at it objectively, it is unbelievably off the mark compared to the source material. It is evident that the director disregarded all previous adaptations and made this one his own way. It is funny, the actors are good, and it doesn't lack traditional European action flair (fast-paced scenes, cuts), as well as a few adorable moments. I couldn't neglect the excellent Mads Mikkelsen, who always gives a worthwhile performance no matter the role. In terms of entertainment, it meets the standard, but in terms of art or any other film-making value, it falls 20 thousand leagues below par.
()
"The Three Musketeers" are an absolute classic in both literature and creation. Some film adaptations are more successful than others, some are more serious, others funnier. When we were told that Paul W. S. Anderson would be making a new version, one started to wonder if Hollywood had gone crazy. The director, who is responsible for films like "Resident Evil" or "Death Race", didn't seem like an excellent choice for such a classic. It's not surprising, he's a director who handles action well, but the ability to breathe life into a classic, that was doubtful. And the result? The doubts were completely justified. Swords are used here for a maximum of five minutes, the rest of the battles are mostly done with the sounds of firearms. "All for one, one for all" is only said while drinking wine and they don't ride horses because it's quite unnecessary when you have an airship at your disposal. Milady de Winter, played by Milla Jovovich, is basically a disguised Alice from "Resident Evil" because the action moves she shows us seem to have been taken straight out of a zombie classic. Or from "The Matrix". And on top of that, we have Cardinal Richelieu, played by Christoph Waltz, who fences. The classic has been turned upside down and it has become a crazy Hollywood-style brawl. Dumas is turning in his grave and cursing Anderson, and I can calmly say that I will never watch this again. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/07/happy-feet-2-bobr-cislo-4-musketyri.html
()
Ads