Such a frustrating disappointment

Good movie but grossly overrated

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

(Originally reviewed: 25/01/2017) I have not seen the original, nor have I any plans to, so this is the first one for me, and despite its problems it's actually pretty decent. Chris O Donnell is not really that good or convincing here but I have seen him act (Scent of a Woman) so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The three actual musketeers are Athos (Kiefer Sutherland), Aramis (Charlie Sheen), and Porthos (Oliver Platt). These three have good chemistry together and all play their characters respectively well; also featuring are Rebecca De Mornay as an outlaw queen, Gabrielle Anwar as Queen Anne and Paul McGann as the cardinal's right hand man. I left out Tim Curry (Cardinal) as I feel his performance ranges from camp to cringeworthy, whereas most of the cast give well-grounded performances. For example Curry seems to make most female characters uncomfortable when he tries to get close to them, and those moments are cringe inducing for myself and probably other audience members.There are a few things I also picked up on such as some horrible dialogue such as when Curry says " I teach pigs to dance, and horses to fly", apart from being impossible, it's also silly and not funny, if that was indeed the intention. Some more examples are from other cast members who say things such as "little wimp bag" (yet again an attempt at humour) and "Don't lose your head" during a possible execution scene, I think the screenwriters thought this would be somewhat amusing, however I'm here to tell you it's bloody awful.Aside from its dialogue and hit and miss humour, I think it's plot takes a backseat to the swashbuckling action, in which there is a scene when a character is sleeping, and the attempted killer decides I'll wait until he wakes up and then tries to stab him during contact, really? My question at the time was why wait? I do not think the plot is fatally flawed however as the final sequence is a lot of fun and there's plenty of cheesy fun to be had on display. A few other things I enjoyed were a scene where Sheen is teaching O Donnell how to woo a lady, and he is so nervous he shouts something like "your poisoned face" to the girl and it cut's back to the musketeers where you can see their why did you say that reactions which I found fairly amusing. Furthermore I admired the choreography of the sword fights, the realistic costumes, and the pacing which is brisk for the most part. Overall this is a pretty good swashbuckling adventure that may be cheesy but can be enjoyed for what it is.

Personally, this is one of my favorite movies of all time. I'm not saying that it's the best adaptation (that still belongs to Richard Lester's musketeers) but this is the adaptation I like most with the Gene Kelly's version right next to it.There's something magical about this movie. I love the story (yes, it's a little bit different from the Dumas' novel), the actors, the costumes, the places, the colors, the music! Everything seems to fit well and in my opinion, the result is a wonderful adventure and romantic movie.There are some historical inaccuracies (the cardinal never wanted to overthrow the king) but as a viewer I can see myself transported to the 17th century. Michael Kamen's music is also another strong point and helps the viewers to travel to time period of the story.The movie has some good values to pass to young audiences. It deals with friendship, honor, courage, "all for one, one for all", injustice and righteousness.This was the version I grew up with alongside "The Man in the Iron Mask" (1998) and the 1987 anime version which is also a very good retelling of the classic (it took some liberties in the story as well).All in all, I love this movie and I can watch it over and over again and never tire of it. It came out right after the hype of "Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves" (a great movie as well) and I truly believe that the people who made "The Three Musketeers", loved what were doing. That is what I feel when I see the movie.

Alexander Dumas' great book has been adapted to film numerous times. And for a good reason, for it is a great story, full of adventure, political intrigue, great characters and daring deeds. Yet I'd claim that it is not really suited for being a movie. Or at least I haven't seen a version yet that manages to capture the spirit and greatness of the original novel.That being said, despite its obvious flaws, this particular film is actually rather enjoyable. Charlie Sheen, Kiefer Sutherland and Oliver Platt portray Aramis, Athos and Porthos, respectively, while Chris O'Donnell plays D'Artagnan. D'Artagnan is a son of a musketeer, an elite guard of the king of France, and is all set out to become one himself. Unfortunately, just as he travels to Paris, Cardinal Richelieu (Tim Curry) has disbanded the musketeers as obsolete and outdated, all while vying for power over the young king. And thus all the musketeers have put down their swords. All except three, thus the title.What the movie gets right is the energy and the adventure. All the main characters are played by good actors and they give solid, entertaining performances. Curry is especially enjoyable as a completely over the top villain. The action scenes are also very good and the whole film looks very nice, having great production values. Definitely a film for all adventure fans.Where the film fails is as an adaptation. The events of the book are not followed all that closely and a lot of the story lines have been completely dropped. And even when they follow the book, it seems that they are in a rush. Like the scene where D'Artagnan and the Three Musketeers meet for the first time. It is a classic scene that been imitated countless of times, but in this film it happens in under five minutes. Like they were in a terrible hurry, which is a real disservice to such a great scene.All in all, The Three Musketeers is at its best if you don't know all that much about the original story from the book. As a standalone film it is a fun little adventure film with good characters. Still, I've seen far worse adaptations.

I got one word for this movie: Stupid! Just flat out, plain stupid!Overall, this was a very entertaining and it had the moments, but I have to say it was one of the worst versions of The Three Musketeers ever and I hope this latest version of The Three Musketeers is better. The plot in this movie did not follow the original plot and there was not enough dialogue between some very important characters from the book. Yes, this movie is meant for entertaining the kids and family, and I will admit there were a couple of times where I laughed at it, but that was mostly because of how stupid and inaccurate the screen writer made the movie.The whole plot is where the Cardinal, who is portrayed as an evil, merciless man, dismisses the musketeers as the king's bodyguards so the musketeers wouldn't be in the way of his evil plan to become king and in comes D'Artagnan who is just itching to be a musketeer like his father finds out about the Cardinal's plot so he and the three musketeers have to go and stop the evil plot. D'Artagnan is a naive and hot-headed little boy and perhaps a bit stupid; Athos is a brave drunk; Aramis is a humble, religious man yet a seducer(?); and Porthos is an arrogant womanizer and a pirate?!?!?! Where exactly did the pirate come from? When D'Artagnan found out Porthos was a pirate, he was actually AMAZED by it! Amazed by it? If D'Artagnan ever first found this out in the first place, he would not even step a foot near Porthos again! Did Disney even know back then that if you were found out to be a pirate or associating yourself with a pirate, you would be hanged?!?!?!?!?! Obviously not! They just think that everything they do in this movie is possible, even with a pirate being able to be a musketeer, not to mention a religious man such as Aramis being a seducer!And where exactly did the ninja come from? This takes place in the 17th century in France, so how exactly does the ninja fit in this movie? If this was a ninja or samurai version of The Three Musketeers, then maybe I would find the ninja believable, but since this is NOT a ninja or samurai version of The Three Musketeers, then I would have to say that Disney did a pretty poor job at creating this movie!The movie was entertaining, but just stupid. Do yourselves and your kids a favor, don't have them watch this horrible crap because it just gives them the wrong idea on the actual historic figures and facts.