D'Artagnan

I'm a huge Dumas fan and watch every one of the adaptations but I missed this one originally. Just caught it on netflix and it's nowhere near as bad as it's made out to be. Yes, the lead is a little off and there isn't much chemistry between him and Mena Suvari who isn't at her best either. The wire based fight scenes look dated and there are a few scene pacing problems. But overall this was quite fun. There *is* chemistry between the Queen and D'artagnan thanks to Catherine Deneuve who exudes star quality in every scene she's in. There are some nice performances from most of the character actors, the original 3 musketeers are great, and the humor if not the plot is very in keeping with the book. I first thought this was a made for TV movie because of the credits at the beginning so I wasn't really expecting much and this definitely beat my expectations. The movie looks good and aside from a few characters most of them seem fairly real, the balance between schtick and too- serious was handled well. Overall, too many faults to be a classic but definitely enough class and fun to be very entertaining. Recommended for fans of period movies and the tongue in cheek dramedy.

Somebody said they could have tried adding something new to the story, I have to wonder if that person saw the fight scenes which were very eastern influenced, something new could have been added, the musketeer was pulling moves I've seen in Jacky Chan films when was the last time you saw that in a film. Its not fantastic but It doesn't try to be the best film ever it's going for entertainment value. Alot of people whined about the script and dialogue, this film is a pg and has many childlike attributes the stereotypical hero saves the day and the damzel essentially it is a family film do disney films recite shakespere dialogue? NO thats because making it to complicated would cut out the biggest part of the target audience. Compared to todays standard of films I don't think this is any worse than stuff I find in my local video rental place, great sets, great costumes a mixture of ideas which seems to work well. One problem I would agree with is that at times the fight scenes are not shown off very well at all, parts are to dark and camera angles are not always good but generally it's watchable and you see the best parts. I would recomend this film for the entertainment and enjoyable value of it not bad at all. Another period, martial arts film I would recomend is brotherhood of the wolf, that offers a little more in terms of script but less in terms of swashbuckling.

Trailer—The Musketeer

I am far to be a fan o Alexandre Dumas. so, this version is far to be a surprise. except the presence of few good actors in not the best roles, some seductive ( but unrealistic ) fight scenes, a story reduced at conventional sketch, Tim Roth looking for the decent way to save his character from not happy script and, sure, Catherine Deneuve in a role who surprise long time after the final credits. a film about nothing. this could be a virtue but , in this case, it remains bizarre. because it is just a walk around characters, a stupid script, fight scenes as fireworks. and this is all.

It's France in the 17th century. King Louis XIII is weak and manipulated by Cardinal Richelieu (Stephen Rea). D'Artagnan loses his parents to Richelieu henchman Febre (Tim Roth). A grown d'Artagnan (Justin Chambers) goes to Paris to join the Musketeers. He finds the loyal order disbanded by the deceitful Richelieu. He befriends Porthos (Steve Speirs), Aramis (Nick Moran) and Athos (Jan Gregor Kremp). He falls for the Queen (Catherine Deneuve)'s chambermaid Francesca (Mena Suvari). This version tries to marry the classic French literature with eastern martial arts stunts. The fighting is impressive especially the ladder fight. The acting is muddled with many unfamiliar faces. The story and the construction is messy. Everything is muddy and brown which strips the picture of energy. Other than the fights, nothing is achieved in this new interpretation.

I just saw this and it's no way near as bad as it's rep. People on the IMDb are saying it's one of the worst films ever made (!) - how many films have they seen? Proberbaly only The Matrix and Spider-Man. The Three Musketeers were unrecognisable in the film, not the dashing heroes we're used to, but D'Artagnon was the coolest (and funniest) so far and the fight scenes were far and away the best ever in a Musketeer movie. The sword fights weren't your usual prancing about, but intense and frantic, much like the Jedi's duels with Darth Maul in The Phantom Menace. The Jackie Chan-style stunts and the changes to the novel were controversial, but the fresh approach added to the film for me. If you expect a classic adaption of the novel with traditional swashbucking, forget it. Instead look for an updated take on the story with lavish and atmospheric visuals, a cool-yet-relatable D'Artagnon, Mena Suvari, loads of intense sword fighting and spectacular stunts.

Ouch! I felt so sick inside after watching this movie. Interesting idea, bad execution. In a film more overdone than an episode of Marshall Law, Musketeer brought a new low to period film making. The trouble with this story is the fact that we already know the story, and flying in mid-air with crazy stunts and unbelievable action won't liven up a familiar story that probably shouldn't have been messed with. Too bad. Maybe something new could have been introduced to this story, but instead, we get another useless retread.

To call this an updated version of Dumas' novel is terrible. I am amazed a french actress of Catherine Deneuve's standing would appear in this trash. There is one TV doctor who successfully starred in a Dumas novel, and he didn't appear in Grays Anatomy. Avoid unless you have the plague.

I for one don't understand how people can rate this as a 4 or less and then say Eraserhead is a masterpiece. The whole reason the movie was called "The Musketeer" is it pretty much has no relation to Alexandre Dumas' classic novel. The 1973 Three/Four Musketeers is about as close to the book as we're going to get. This movie the acting is hampered by really stupid dialog. It made George Lucas movies look literate. The action is great, but completely out of historical reality, then again its a movie, not a documentary. Entertaining? Yes, I thought so. Not as much as seeing Oliver Reed and Micheal York. As bad as the lead was, he was Oscar caliber compared to the absolutely useless Chis O'Donnell in the 1993 version. Given a choice between the 1993 version and this movie, I'd take this one. If you want a good swashbuckler, stick to Errol Flynn, or even Mask of Zorro. If you want Musketeers see the 1973/74 version. Better yet, just pick up the book.

I dissent from the negative comments based on comparisons to the novel, or earlier " Three Musketeer" movies. This movie has no pretense of remaking the novel, or earlier movie versions ( the Michael York/Raquel Welch version is a classic). It is, at most, a modest "prequel", designed to capture young action viewers, and romantics ( Justin Chambers/ Mena Suvari); dirty old men ( Mena Suvari); and Deneuve fans (as all men ought to be). Mena Suvari is wooden and ornamental, but Chambers here is at least as good as Heath Ledger in "A Knight's Tale". Deneuve is excellent as always. Tim Roth is a definitional villain, although Stephen Rea is a weak Richeleau. Lesser knowns as the other musketeers , and the French actor as " Planche", add spice. I am a sucker for swordfighting movies, so loved this one. There are many worse choices in your video store.