You've ignored this film. It will no longer appear as a recommendation. View ignored films.
You've decided to remember The Three Musketeers for later. You can see all your remembered films here.
Summary: The hot-headed young D'Artagnan along with three former legendary but now down on their luck Musketeers must unite and defeat a beautiful double agent and her villainous employer from seizing the French throne and engulfing Europe in war. (imdb)
The Three Musketeers makes for a fun throwback to the swashbucklers of Errol Flynn. There's sword fights, buxom lasses, airships and a stylish embrace of all things anachronistic. No, it doesn't take itself seriously, nor is it gritty and dark. The story reflects a far more old fashioned style of narrative where everything is resolved with swordfighting. The negative reviews reflect a strange disconnect for a film that is everything it set out to be and everything promised by the trailers.
Horses, swords, muskets, and chivalry is too boring. Hence we need airships, Resident-Evil-like acrobatic triple somersaults, and grand explosions. While being mindlessly fun at times, it is yet another Bay-esque / Resident Evil film borrowing the looks but exhibiting none of the things that truly make the Three Musketeers the Three Musketeers.
The incongruous, overabundant CGI, the constant plot holes, the awful acting, the garish, desultory costume design, the unfunny comic relief, the misfired attempt at steampunk, the awkwardly-shoehorned-in airships, and the flat-out stupid dialogue add up to something that feels less like a film than a Square-Enix game, to say nothing of Planchet's disturbing treatment. But I won't deny that Paul WS Anderson can stumble on idle fun when his piles of clichés accidentally add up to fight scenes.
Perhaps the most boring Musketeers movie on record to date. No charisma or chemistry to be seen in the leads, no dash or pizazz to the swashbuckling scenes. Even the usually reliable Christoph Waltz is dull. Why bother, really?
I'm not particularly snobby about film, so you need to understand how rare and significant it is for me to say that this movie insulted my intelligence. It's not just stupid, it's AMAZINGLY stupid. Miscast, too; Logan Lerman is unmistakably modern and American and feels so out of place (although I did like Ray Stevenson as Porthos). Cartoony action scenes, bad dialogue, an embarrassing hook for a sequel that will never happen. Makes the 1993 Disney version look brilliant.
THE THREE MUSKETEERS has, for a climax, a dogfight between two airships...160 years before the first passenger balloon flew. If the same nutty sensibility had applied to the entire film, it might've been fun, but too much of it wallows in cliches; the script is remarkably bad, and the actors do little to help. Christoph Waltz seems utterly bored by the role of Richelieu, while Milla Jovovich, as Milady, has a look of dazed stupidity on her face throughout. Only the sets and costumes impress.
If you take it for what it is ... it's still shit! No, seriously, this is a very unserious remake of a great story that, mind you, has been made for the screen with class on more than one occasion. I understand, though, why Mila Jovovich is mad at the advertising agency - this is NOT the action film it pretends to be; it is a overplayed, badly written family piece in which director Anderson has allowed Mads Mikkelsen to speak the most embarrasing Danish-English ever. Like, EVER.
It's not that bad. It's not really good either. Great costumography & scenery plus a great and actually funny side cast (Waltz & co) save the movie from the horrendously cheesy plot that would have amazed even Jules Verne. Oh, and Bloom actually had a really great role fit for him and didn't annoy me at all! Main actors have no chemistry and are a big fail, but all in all I actually enjoyed the stupidness of it all - and who am I to reject Jovovich in a tight corset and no leg cover to speak of?
Not bad, at least it's entertaining, but nothing remarkable at all. The humour added and the weirdness of Milla Jovovich's character and performance, with the spectacularity of some action scenes, are the best of it. Christoph Waltz was never more wasted. Whatever, it's better just to don't take it seriously (something one knows from the very beginning).
I expected so much less, but it's still not very good. It has a grandeur and an ability to make me care a little about approximately half of the characters (at least the queen, portrayed by Juno Temple who I absolutely adore), but on the other end of the spectrum is a over-heavy focus on CGI, a flawed plotline and a few utterly dull characters, particularly those of Jovovich (who I can never seem to like) and Waltz. Orlando Bloom was surprisingly alright in his uncharacteristic villain-role.
Fun to watch Waltz and Jovovich in their funny side roles; apart from that the movie is totally stupid and superficial...reminds me of the idiotic Pirates of Caribbean movies; hope there wont be millions of sequels..
The airships were a nice gimmick and mr. Waltz is brilliant as ever, but that's about it. Good thing the original script was very good, which kind of almost saves the film. A bit.
2- avoid at all costs, bad :: I didn't even make it to the ten-minute mark. Why even try to make "The Three Musketeers," when what you really want to make is a mindless retro-futuristic Underworld-esque action flick?
It's not that bad, people, if you enjoy the story and you like the characters, it's really fun, because it's the four of them back, and it end up being nice. However, we can't let unnoticed some of the nonsense things that this film shows, yeah, flying ships? Ok, it's very weird, and how could they destroy all of the Leonardo da Vinci's manuscripts?
Loading Products from Amazon and Ebay
Privacy Policy |
Abuse Policy |
Contact |
About Us |
APIs |
Advertising & Press |
RSS