The Three Musketeers

The Three Musketeers-720P

The Three Musketeers-360P

The Three Musketeers-480P

When I first saw the trailer, I was happy that someone tried a new musketeer movie. Because they were always my favorite hero characters. But when I watched the movie, after 2 minutes, I realized that it's just another "Milla Evil movie", flying high in the air killing' baddies. What seems to work in Resident evil, feels much from outer space in this movie. But maybe that's what the Director wanted, because, believe it or not, it got flying air ships as well. I wonder if any one doing this movie, hast ever read Alexandre Dumas books, about the musketeers. This movie is one of the worst musketeer movies, ever made, they even shot this movie in Bavaria, not in France! If you looking' forward for a good sword fighting musketeer movie, I would recommend, the 3 Oliver Reed movies, which are close to the books, and a lot more fun to watch. And please, don't think about, giving' us sequels, to this trash.

Honestly, this was not the best adaption of The Three Musketeers, but I personally enjoyed it a lot, despite it being in a different language and not understanding half of it. One of the reasons why is because the movie was very entertaining and the second reason is because I prefer not to compare both the movie and the books together since no movie is perfect when it comes to adapting it from a book, the only one that came pretty close was The Three Musketeers' 1970s version. I did not really mind the airships because Anderson did say in an article that he decided to use one of Da Vinci's war machines in the movie, and I just interpreted the airships as Buckingham just trying to find a way to defeat the nation of France. I did not mind it either when Milady bungee jumped from the roof practically half naked because, honestly, who would want to be bungee jumping in that kind of dress? Sure, it's a lot easier to fight in the dress, but do you really think it's going to be a whole lot easier trying to bungee jump and doing all those jumps and leaps up on the roof and in Queen Anne's room? Though the Milady in the actual book would probably never do anything like that, I did not mind it in the least because I believe if Milady is capable of murder, then she is capable of everything else. The movie was a bit humorous and all action, the plot seemed to go by too quickly in my opinion, but I just think the movie is good for entertainment. There was a lot of references to the book, though. Like for instance, Buckingham's "letters" to Queen Anne, the stealing of the Queen's diamonds, Athos and Milady's relationship-despite the complete differences between the book and this movie-, the affair between Milady and Buckingham, and finally England going to war with France. I won't go into full details of the book, you just have to read the book yourself but there are a lot of differences between them, but still some references to it. Some of the characters were a little off character, like Buckingham since in the book he wasn't really a bad guy, just a love-sick puppy, but I think (from the German version of the movie) that Orlando Bloom did not do so bad; in fact, he really made it seem plausible for him to play the role of the bad guy. Both Orlando and Milla really gave me chills, though, the sexuality between Milady and Buckingham really drew me into the story more because, just like the Milady in the book, the Milady in this movie was not your average go-to-church-and-stay-pure kinda 17th century woman. I believe Milady in both the book and the movies make the story more interesting because without her there would be no adventures. Although, I will agree with one review, there was too much attention on Buckingham and Milady and not enough on D'Artagnan, which is basically what the whole story is about: D'Artagnan. I also found it a little weird of how Milady was able to survive the fall from the airship, I do not find it plausible for a person to be able to survive after jumping 4000 (or higher, I suck with numbers) and landing in the water, but the movie is just meant for entertainment so I really do not care. I really hope that the next movie, though, will pay a little more attention to D'Artagnan (AND not to kill off Orlando! 'Cause I'll be so mad if Anderson did!) If you are one of those people who really expects this to be the perfect adaption, do not expect too much because no adaption is perfect and this is just one of those movies where you can just go watch a movie (say a Disney movie) and just escape from reality, that's what it is.

At first glance, we all know that this will never be a great version of The Three Musketeers but with all the flying ships and the swashbucklery, we can still give it a try. The film ends up pretty fun. Even with all the silly nonsense and the modern stuff scattered in the film. The cast made it enjoyable. The 3D is surprisingly good. But in the end, it's just another blockbuster. The film also had troubles to its pacing and the writing is a bit modern. The Three Musketeers won't end up as a classic but it can be fun in some times. The baffle goes to the director. Paul W.S. Anderson is an unusual person to direct a film like this since he's more of a futuristic action movie guy. Adding some steampunk and plenty of slow-mos. The film didn't end up being too faithful to the original story. The director just wants to feel comfortable to his style. Modernism, Cool Devices, Hot Women, and Slow-Mo. The pacing is problematic in the second act. It shows the plan of the villains and in parts, you won't notice that it already passes another day. The other thing about the second act, the Musketeers are mostly absent. It shows more of the antagonists and their plans. It's like Transformers where the titular characters only appear when there's danger and mostly focuses to a kid and the villains. But here, the titular characters are not bland. Some of the cast made their scenes enjoyable. Logan Lerman does his thing. Not quite appreciating though. But his female fans will love it. The actors who played the three musketeers gives plenty of personality to their roles. Matthew Macfadyen is pretty cool as Athos. We don't get to see much Luke Evans but he is cunning as Aramis. Ray Stevenson is as usual, funny and had much character. In the antagonists, Christophe Waltz has many style of being a villain. Orlando Bloom looks like he's enjoying but a little threat in his little scenes. Mads Mikkelsen is the only serious villain among them. Milla Jovovich does her swagger and seductiveness but a little personality. The action is pretty cool. But so much slow-mos. Just like in Resident Evil Afterlife. Slow-motion to make it cool. Anderson started these excessive slow-mos in Resident Evil 4. Maybe he thought these things will affect the 3D or maybe he just wanted to be cool. It's cool enough but when the musketeers was helping D'Artagnan to fight Rochefort's army, there is one moment of this scene that looks too similar to 300. When Athos was slashing them but here there are no blood. No matter how violent they kill, you won't see a single drop. The 3D is surprisingly good. It's almost like a gimmick but this gimmick is actually good. Swords, Bombs, Pointy Objects, and other stuff. The production design is decent. The costumes and the setting are well made. The CGI were obviously good. The flying battleships and some CGI swords. CGI bombs. CGI background. The music score fits the whole theme but every single score repeats in every scene. The writing isn't good. Too modern. They said the S word but it's funny anyways. Fans of the original story will definitely be disappointed with this adaptation but if you are in for some steampunk, slow-mos, swashbuckling swordfights then try watch this. It will not remain a classic or one of the best. It's not really trying to be the best. It's just a version with futuristic elements or it could be just a 3D gimmick. The movie wasn't bad as I expected but it has those flaws that aren't easy to ignore. It just wanted to be fun. It's good to watch as an action film. As an adaptation, it's good to watch right now but someday it'll be forgotten or ignored. But really, this is fun.

Silly movie this one but not boring. It cost $75M and it shows. There are huge problems though. First of all we deal with a classic here, so it has a legacy that must be respected. In this version, every character is presented as a buffoon. The acting, the deliverance... Leonardo da Vinci, we learn, has drawn up plans for a flying "war machine," a combination of dirigible and seafaring galleon. The plot and the dialogs are full of hot air like the war machine. The director is obviously thought that these were minor issues! The action is dominated by green-screen and Matrix-like effects. Overall: Not boring if you are 9 y.o. but a disgrace nevertheless...

"After failing in a scheme to steal Leonardo Da Vinci's airship blueprints, the Musketeers..." Seriously, the writer of "Predators" and the director of "Resident Evil" decided that Alexander Dumas masterpiece was not good enough... so they decided to add "Leonardo Da Vinci's airship" and make some other "improvements" on this horrid joke of a movie. I stopped watching when I saw Countess D'Winter sword-fighting and spinning on the wire rig. I wondered how long before the zombies would show up. As a lover of literature, I can't stand those Hollywood adaptations. Like when someone decided to cast Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes and also ignored that the detective from Baker Street never before touched a firearm and sent the most brilliant detective ever imagined on a shooting spree around London. Anyway, it isn't hard to understand why this $75,000,000 piece of garbage flopped in the box office. This shows that the public is not as stupid as we may think. Vox populi, vox Dei.

I was actually going through an IMDb list and saw the rating of this movie as 5.8 so I felt the urge to write a review. I read some comments and it seems there was witch hunt for this nice and entertaining movie. It is not the best movie of 2011 but come on, it is much better than a lot of movies that have way higher ratings. First of all, the action is pretty good. The acting is very well done and the CGI is used professionally. This is a modern approach to the classic three musketeers and I enjoyed it a lot. From my point of view, a remake needs to add some stuff to the original movie and this movie made it successfully.

I feel a little sorry to be so critical of this movie, because I thought some of the performances were fine, especially Matthew McFadyen and Ray Stevenson. Alas, Logan Lerman and Milla Jovovich were rather unconvincing in their roles, sucking to varying degrees. While one or two of the 3D scenes worked very well, notably the duel on the top of Notre Dame, the 3D was at its most effective for the credits and some of the other on-screen text. While it did add to the movie, it did not add quite enough to compensate for the other downsides. In the end, the irony is that the movie used 3D technology to depict two dimensional characters. Perhaps the best parts of the movie were the opening prologue and the early scenes in Paris; thereafter it was all downhill, with the hill getting steeper as the movie progressed. It was apparent that the scriptwriters had either read the book or seen some earlier Musketeer movies, but equally apparent that they had either not understood the story or had decided they knew better than Dumas. Making Buckingham the villain was very ill-judged, and they should have made better use of the Cardinal (and Waltz). Most of this I could have lived with, but what brought the whole edifice crashing down was the nonsensical video-game sequences, featuring ridiculous flying ships that flouted most of the laws of physics (Newtonian and Einsteinian). I think these annoyed me more than the horrendous CGI in the last Indiana Jones movie. The really frustrating thing is that this could have been an entertaining film; it looked great and had a sound cast. It seemed to me that the director may either have been influenced by childhood over-exposure to the Teletubbies, or that the need to make use of 3D forced the story in a truly stupid direction. I suspect the latter is closer to the truth, and this is what killed 3D last time, i.e. letting the technology drive the script in increasingly bizarre directions. It would be easier to forgive some of the movie's faults were its crime not so great, i.e. trashing one of the all-time classic adventure stories!