Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

terrible... so disappointed.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

I was glad to see this film again...after 41 years...because I remembered it being great fun. And it is, but......sometimes the great slapstick gets in the way of why things are happening in the plot......sometimes in the midst of swashbuckling, it's so obvious that one character is waiting for the other to make a certain movement before he makes his movement. A little sloppy.But, as I said, it's great fun...and still my favorite movie adaption of Dumas' story.Michael York heads the cast as d'Artagnan. I remember thinking back then how handsome he was, but now when I look at him he appeared to be bordering on anorexia. Nevertheless, he does a very nice job here as a slightly klutzy musketeer. Oliver Reed was a fine actor, but here as Athos I am afraid he did not put in his finest performance. Frank Finlay was decent as Porthos; most Americans probably won't recognize him, but he also played Jacob Marley in the George C. Scott version of "A Christmas Carol". Richard Chamberlain seems bright and lively as Aramis, although his screen-time seems less than it should be. Geraldine Chaplin is along as the Queen. Charlton Heston as Cardinal Richelieu (nice job). Faye Dunaway is mildly interesting as Milady de Winter, but again, this is hardly her best performance. Christopher Lee is decent as the Count De Rochefort. Simon Ward has one of the better roles as the Duke of Buckingham. Raquel Welch is shallow (perhaps ankle deep) as a lady in waiting...but she looks good.Perhaps the biggest star here are the sets and costumes, which are, for the most part, rather lavish. Overall, it's a rather entertaining film, but I have a difficult time excusing them for making Dumas' characters into semi-buffoons.

This movie has not been available for quite a while. I recall from long-ago viewings that it was sumptuous to look at, with unusually 'luxe costumes. I was happy to see it pop up on Netflix, but a lot has happened to movies since 1973...The verdict? It's refreshing to see that even after 40 years of Hollywood film visuals being continually upgraded, the wide screen cinematography still impresses. The visuals are so strong that I recall about half of them perfectly. It includes a lot of historical research (often pertaining to toil) which lifts the piece, and it riffs beautifully on Vermeer's side-lit domestic chambers. Lester (or his cinematographer) has a great eye. As I watched I recall that this movie introduced overt athleticism to fight scenes, so maybe we have Lester to blame for starting that trend (which is still the sole conceit of many bad movies). The costumes are every bit as opulent as I recall. Money has been spent & every dime is on-screen. Every historical film in recent memory still borrows from this (Amadeus, Ridicule, etc.)On the negative side, I have no idea what would draw a viewer to watch this more than once. None of the characters or their predicaments engaged me. I wish the story was stronger. The cast is too massive for this tiny conflict. At certain points the score arrives full blast, to fill sections of the movie they apparently forgot to storyboard. It feels like things are set in France only about twice in the movie. And Raquel Welch is not very good. The wall-to-wall slapstick starts alright but becomes more and more annoying. And the movie as a whole is on the irritating side. The countless fights go on and on until they just blend together. The movie has so few places to go, that it should be less tiresome. But two very lonely ideas (sword fights, slapstick) crave more support. The visuals are very strong. The script is weak.

First, I should admit that I've never read Alexandre Dumas's novel. But if Richard Lester's movie version of "The Three Musketeers" is any indication, then it must be a fun read. Or maybe Lester simply decided to add a lot of humor. But either way, there's not a dull moment in this version of the tale.Playing the title characters are Oliver Reed as Athos, Frank Finlay as Porthos and Richard Chamberlain as Aramis, with Michael York as D'Artagnan trying to become a musketeer. At first, D'Artagnan is sort of a hapless klutz, but he wastes no effort in helping the trio in their efforts to stop Cardinal Richelieu (Charlton Heston) from gaining more power. Along the way, D'Artagnan falls for Constance Bonancieux (Raquel Welch), while the slimy Count Rochefort (Christopher Lee) and the enigmatic Lady De Winter (Faye Dunaway) abet Richelieu. It's a great time from beginning to end! Also starring Jean-Pierre Cassel, Simon Ward, Georges Wilson, Spike Milligan and Roy Kinnear (Algernon in "Help!").I wonder how this movie would have come out had it starred the Beatles, as Lester originally planned.

I love movies, and since there are so many kinds it's hard to say that any one is my all-time favorite. But in the space of swashbuckler, or adventure, or adaptations from books, or what have you, I don't know of anything better than this version The Three Musketeers. This version of Musketeers also gets kudos from me for its faithfulness to the book. It is so rare for great books to be made into great movies, or even good ones, but they did it! Last of all, they made the story funnier than the book was without taking anything away from the story. Bravo to Mr. Lester and all concerned. To wit: One of my favorite lines of comedy was: "He's torn the carpet!" Remember the scene?