Free The Three Musketeers (LQ)
Genres: ActionAdventureRoma
Starring: Til Schweiger, Logan Lerman, Orlando Bloom, Milla Jovovich, Matthew MacFadyen, Christian Oliver, Mads Mikkelsen
Director(s): Paul W.S. Anderson
Country: Germany, USA, UK
Year: 2011
IMDB Rating: 6
The hot-headed young DArtagnan 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.
 |
The Three Musketeers (LQ) (iPod) | Resolution: 480x208 px | Total Size: 361 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Three Musketeers (LQ) (DivX) | Resolution: 720x304 px | Total Size: 1453 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "The Three Musketeers (LQ)". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
crako1 (16 May 2012)
Great Fun!
This is a fun summer time movie, somehow shifted to October. MillaJovovich and Christopher Waltz outshine the rest of the cast, withLogan Lerman earning a lackluster "boo" for his performance. (Onecannot determine if his acting, his lines or his hair is the worstthing in the movie. Indeed, his hair cannot decide if it is a mullet ora throwback to "That Shaggy Dog".) The stunts are over the top, true,but great fun to watch, and the 3D effects don't disappoint. Unlikesome other films the 3D continues throughout the movie - well worthwearing the silly glasses. Milla Jovovich continues to be one of thefew female actors athletic enough to take on such an over the topphysical role. The fight scenes are all well choreographed.Considering the near absence of promotion, this effort was a surprisingand refreshing break from an otherwise joyless year. Well worth seeing.
Linas Krisiukenas (15 May 2012)
Here musketeers go again.
If Alexandre Dumas lived after the invention of cinema, he would bedamn good script writer, I bet. His novel ÂThe Three Musketeers" hasbeen interpreted on screen countless of times not without a reason,even Mickey, Donald and Goofy combo played it back in 2004 ("All forfun, fun for all"). So, here musketeers come again, this time directedby Paul W.S. Anderson, empowered by quite impressive cast: womenmelting Orlando Bloom (Lord of the Rings, Kingdom of Heaven), AcademyAward nominee Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds) and supermodelMilla Jovovich (Resident Evil, The Fifth Element).ÂThe Three Musketeers" begins with "Assassin's Creed" or "Prince ofPersia" game series style presentation of the characters (for those,who are unfamiliar with the titles, it's stealth action games, filledwith various ninja'ish special effects). Modern Athos (MatthewMacfadyen) reborns as a diving assassin equipped with gadgets wortheven Batman's attention, Aramis (Luke Evans) becomes a roof jumpingrenaissance ninja and Porthos (Ray Stevenson) seems to have gotten somesupernatural strength Ignoring those new super abilities they got, thecast of three old musketeers does really solid performance, althoughthere are not much space for expressing their potential because of thelack of dialogues and focus of the plot being on other characters(D'Artagnan, King, Richelieu). Another big figure in the plot, Milady(Milla Jovovich), joins trio in robbing Da Vinci's vault (!), Miladyperforms slo-mo-bullets-escaping-twelve-years-old ÂMatrix" like runthrough trapped corridor and after reaching the goal  plans of modernwarfare  betrays musketeers.A year passes, musketeers feel betrayed, lost their way and motivation("We are warriors, but there is no one to fight"). France is ruled byyoung, good-hearted, deeply fallen in love and totally not interestedin politics King Louis XIII(Freddie Fox), which is manipulated bycunning Richelieu. And here comes hot tempered gaskon garçon namedD'Artagnan (young Logan Lerman) and spices things up by challenging allthree old musketeers to a duel. Paul Anderson was not very originalhere and used original Dumas's idea of how quadruplet got together andunited for saving the honor of France and fighting Richelieu's(Christoph Waltz) bodyguards. At this point new musketeer's era begins.New era full of action, rapier battles, special effects, airship fightsand mediocre jokes begins The new version is pumped with visual effects, most of them obviouslydesigned for 3D version. The battle of airships with massiveflamethrowers on top might actually be interesting if only you are ableto get rid of idea scratching somewhere inside your head that somethingis just not right. Unfortunately, most of other, almost iconic, actionscenes is seen somewhere else: escaping bullets, fighting on therooftop or crossing "lasers" corridor leaves bitter taste in yourmouth.This story adaptation does not come anywhere close to the level ofentertainment Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes gives, but if you arelooking for brainless action movie with some nice costumes andlandscapes The Three Musketeers still might be your pick. If you arenot into this kind of movies or just like Dumas's original story Âsimply stay away from it.
Emma Dinkins (10 May 2012)
Chix Chat on Film review: Muskateers on steroids
Yet another adaptation of the Alexandre Dumas classic Three Muskateers,however this tale came with way too much modernization for my taste.Flying battle ships, automatic cannon launchers, and tricked out vaultswere just a few of the technological feats that were only a necessitybecause the story needed something more to make anyone care long enoughto stay in their seat the full running time. I felt that from thetrailer there was a desire to make this a larger than life visualextravaganza, with the wide and aerial views of the French and Englishlandscapes, along with the huge explosions the viewer was supposed tobe amazed. The only amazing thing that I found was that the only way toremember that we were experiencing a story in Paris, France is that thecharacters kept mentioning it, otherwise with all the varying accentsit was easy to forget where the story was taking place, I don't recallone person speaking with a French accent or even interjecting a bit ofFrench for some authenticity, not once. And don't even get me startedon the ridiculously constructed chance meeting of D'artangnan (LoganLerman) and the Muskateers. I have to admit that I found The Duke ofBuckingham (Orlando Bloom) to be delightful, he was a balanced mix ofcharm and cunning. But what the heck was going on with King Louis theXIII (Freddie Fox), a fashionisto? No one seemed to be immune to thewhiles of MiLady de Winter (Milla Jovavich) and you just get thefeeling that she is the only woman in the world with an adventurousside, she was everywhere. All I could think of while watching this filmwas, this is the stupidest Three Muskateers story ever. I love movies,I love action in movies, I love classic tales, and I love fashion inany context, but I did not love this film dare say I did not much likeit, it should have stuck with a character driven tale of heroism, sidestepping the over the top presentation and preoccupation with fashion.My preference is the classic take on the story, the cleverness andquick wit of the Muskateers, their exceptional fencing ability andtheir keen sense of loyalty to the thrown as they work to mentorD'artangnan has always been enough. Don't bastardize a classic, makeyour film and call it Swashbuckling or something else. The story didnot require 3-D, and it did not require my presence in the movietheater. I give it a red light.
jason-michael-rowe (10 May 2012)
Terrible re-make
This film was so bad it made me want to cry. After watching for justover an hour I switched off. The main sticking point for me here is theway they seemed to be trying very hard at trying to make it seemsomehow different to the 73 version, or the '90s version. However itwas as though they took the script, cut it up, removed bits and pieces,jumbled the rest up and then threw it back together again. What we'releft with is a film that made little or no sense, minus any slapstickhumour, or intrigue. It is all very pretty....the costumes are lovelyand the CGI is barely passable, all the actors are quite pretty too.Doesn't really matter if they can act. The feel of the film is far tooclean for me. The props, costumes, scenery all look out of place. Theflying ship, the underwater breathing apparatus, and the hi=techlooking security system protecting the diamonds were just completelybaffling. I won't even go into how bad Orlando Bloom is. And whoevercast James Corden in this film needs shooting.Just stick to the 73 version, which is my favourite by far.
MBloodT (05 May 2012)
All For Fun
At first glance, we all know that this will never be a great version ofThe Three Musketeers but with all the flying ships and theswashbucklery, 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 thefilm. The cast made it enjoyable. The 3D is surprisingly good. But inthe end, it's just another blockbuster. The film also had troubles toits pacing and the writing is a bit modern. The Three Musketeers won'tend up as a classic but it can be fun in some times.The baffle goes to the director. Paul W.S. Anderson is an unusualperson to direct a film like this since he's more of a futuristicaction movie guy. Adding some steampunk and plenty of slow-mos. Thefilm didn't end up being too faithful to the original story. Thedirector just wants to feel comfortable to his style. Modernism, CoolDevices, Hot Women, and Slow-Mo. The pacing is problematic in thesecond act. It shows the plan of the villains and in parts, you won'tnotice 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 likeTransformers where the titular characters only appear when there'sdanger and mostly focuses to a kid and the villains. But here, thetitular characters are not bland.Some of the cast made their scenes enjoyable. Logan Lerman does histhing. Not quite appreciating though. But his female fans will love it.The actors who played the three musketeers gives plenty of personalityto their roles. Matthew Macfadyen is pretty cool as Athos. We don't getto see much Luke Evans but he is cunning as Aramis. Ray Stevenson is asusual, funny and had much character. In the antagonists, ChristopheWaltz has many style of being a villain. Orlando Bloom looks like he'senjoying but a little threat in his little scenes. Mads Mikkelsen isthe only serious villain among them. Milla Jovovich does her swaggerand seductiveness but a little personality.The action is pretty cool. But so much slow-mos. Just like in ResidentEvil Afterlife. Slow-motion to make it cool. Anderson started theseexcessive slow-mos in Resident Evil 4. Maybe he thought these thingswill affect the 3D or maybe he just wanted to be cool. It's cool enoughbut when the musketeers was helping D'Artagnan to fight Rochefort'sarmy, 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 howviolent they kill, you won't see a single drop. The 3D is surprisinglygood. 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 wellmade. The CGI were obviously good. The flying battleships and some CGIswords. CGI bombs. CGI background. The music score fits the whole themebut 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 thisadaptation but if you are in for some steampunk, slow-mos,swashbuckling swordfights then try watch this. It will not remain aclassic or one of the best. It's not really trying to be the best. It'sjust a version with futuristic elements or it could be just a 3Dgimmick. The movie wasn't bad as I expected but it has those flaws thataren't easy to ignore. It just wanted to be fun. It's good to watch asan action film. As an adaptation, it's good to watch right now butsomeday it'll be forgotten or ignored. But really, this is fun.
dgg321982 (04 May 2012)
a bad "the three musketeers"
I have only watched two of TTM, the 1993 version and The Man in theIron Mask, (OK, the last one is sequel). This one easily takes the caketo be the worst of them all.I am not a fan of Dumas either, but his original story is far moreappealing than the one here. What disturbs me most is the modernelement that the script writer tried to sneak in. The "Assassin'sCreed" style killing and the cult around Da Vinci were amazing when Iplayed Assassin's Creed several years ago, but here they were justplain annoying and making the whole French thing to Italianrenaissance. The three musketeers are more machine gun operators thansword fighters. The bullet time is great but still inferior to 300 inmany aspects.Perhaps it is time to dust off the 1993 version and enjoy that.
Gabe Singh (30 April 2012)
Absolute garbage, skip this one at all cost
First off I want to start by saying that i have never posted a reviewon IMDb before as no movie how bad it is has compelled me to do so. Butrecently these so called Hollywood blockbusters have left me with nochoice. So lets come to this movie now. First off who did the castingfor this movie and who wrote the script if you can call it a script. Iguess the plan in the boardroom was lets take good actors like ChrisWaltz, Mads Mikkelson, Ray Stevenson and even Luke Evans. All theseactors except Luke Evans I love dearly. But in this movie all thedirector and producer did was under-use the best actors in the movieand instead give all the screen time to Mila and Logan. I personallyenjoy watching Mila in Resident Evil series but here she was justunnecessary. And this kid Logan, who calls him an actor, i am furiousthat he got paid to do this role so poorly. I am a business grad so Iwork better in explaining things in points. So i will just make a listof what I felt was wrong with this movie; here it goes: The threemusketeers, um mm I mean the four musketeers I guess - 1) Lets teach all the teenage kids to fight and join some sort of armyor gang. Also send them to the big city to pick fights with anyone whoinsults their horse. There is no honour in doing anything else butkilling another human being. I guess being a scholar, inventor and allthat is just a waste, be a killer thats where all the glory and Honoris.2) Lets hire a bunch of exceptional actors and under-use them throughthe whole movie and just use their faces on the posters to sell themovie.3) A 20 year old kid who is trained by his father can beat down 20cardinal guards all by himself while the brave three musketeers watchand laugh in surprise.4) If you kill the cardinal guards in the streets of France, then thepublic cheers and rejoices for you and calls you a hero openly.5) Lets use Da Vinci's name for the sake of scientific inventions andget away with inventing a flying elephant for crying out loud.6) lets offer no character development in any dimension but still makethe movie in 3 dimension for the people to enjoy.7) Remember if a girl kisses you, then you must go to England, stealthe Diamonds, bring them back to France all in 5 days. I suppose waterships used to sail really fast during those times.8) If you are the villain and you have to stop the hero from bringingthe diamonds back to France, then do not shoot the airship down anddestroy the evidence but instead offer them a trade for the captivegirl.9) Lets get the heroes who have seen an airship for the first time intheir lives fly an airship later on in the movie with no real trainingwhat so ever.10) Lets get Mila to kill 5-6 skilled guards in a sword fight and pulloff a heist but yet still accept defeat in front of 4 musketeersbecause she is such a petite woman with no strength.11) Lets throw Mila from the airship thousands of miles down to oceanand still have her survive the ordeal because first you cant kill Milano matter what and second because if you fall from the height ofthousand miles into water, it does not hurt as water breaks your fall.I can continue on with many other rants about the movie but I will stophere. My only request is to Mr. Mikkelson and Christopher Waltz is thatI know it takes money to pay the bills but please do read the scriptbefore you actually sign a movie. I suggest everyone who reads thisreview to avoid this movie completely. Trust me you wont miss much
kirsten-tyson98 (29 April 2012)
an great film
The three musketeers has been a story for centuries & i thought it wasbrought back to life by this film.ever since i herd they were filmingfor it i couldn't wait to see at the cinema.it's a fast moving,engagingfun & cleverly juggles a big cast of characters within a prettycomplicated caper plot- the details of which you don't need to worryabout to much.especially when you can just watch Young Logan lerman,who is suitably charming & handsome & tousle haired, eagerly boundingaround surrounded by lush costumes & spectacular vistas. it's also niceto see James cordon having fun in the comic - relief role as themusketeers put upon servant.i really enjoyed the film i would recommend anyone to go & see it. iwish people would stop saying that its not a good film.
olsta1976 (27 April 2012)
One for all and all for nothing
A disappointing adaptation of the Dumas classic.I think anyone over the age of 30 who still fondly remembers theMichael York and Oliver Reed 1973 classic will inevitably drawcomparisons and on all fronts this film comes a woeful second best.The dialogue is atrocious. The acting, with the exception of CristophWaltz, is wooden and unengaging. Even the CGi laden sword fighting,complete with 300 style slow mo, feels strangely out of place.There really isn't much to recommend this film to anyone who has an agethat does not end with the word teen.Do yourself a favour and watch the 1973 version online somewhere to seehow it should be done.
cymonerry (26 April 2012)
The tradition continues with a twist - spoiler
Here it is again, The Three Musketeers.So what's new? Nothing except the ridiculous use of cgi to create animpossible act of physics. Flying English warships, bullshit. I foundthis part of the movie unnecessary.Having got that out of the way I love Mila Jovovitch since The FifthElement. Her hatred of the English in The Messenger Joan of Arc makesher ideal for the part. Roy Kinnear died making one of these Musketeer movies, he was a gem. Ithink he would like this movie it has all the stuff they did in the 70swith the likes of Oliver Reed, Faye Dunaway and Charlton Heston. Iloved those films and this one is also lots of fun. Check out theoriginals before or after seeing this. They are truly classics.All said, a great performance by all, just a bit annoyed by theoverstatement of English Naval power for that time. Airships? We hardlyhad a Navy during this period. We would soon be entangled in civil war,plague and fire all involving the French before being whipped by theDutch. This is Pure French propaganda translated to English, butsurprisingly embraced by the English soon after its publication.In homage this is definitely Hollywood doing its version, in that theyoverdid it with their flying rubbish that would never get off theground. The ship has an enormous wooden double steering wheel. Airshipsneed to be light. But It is definitely worth the watch if you considerit your average violent kids film with comic values. I Think Hollywoodconfused this classic with The Pirates of the Caribbean and could notresist adding their "magic" puke!The tradition continues, only slightly perverted by Hollywood.
A Barros (25 April 2012)
3 fools and a boy
The original story is a dense drama, with action - good action! Severalmovies have told the story, more or less successfully. This one noteven tried to tell the story. It just borrows the characters and themotto from the book and delivers brainless action. This is a sort ofteen musketeer version, with D'Artagnan looking 15, in love with afalse blonde. Then, airships. Nothing could look less XVII Century thanthis foolishness. A waste of a few good actors like Christoph Waltz,Til Schweiger and Milla Jovovich. Even if you like the approach, thebig problem with the movie is that there is no tension. You just knowthat everything will come to a happy and easy end. Use your time toread the book - the original thing.
tabuno (24 April 2012)
Missed Opportunity for Greatness
Surprisingly much better than expected but its very premise of itsMusketeers and France and Britain destroy any of its credibility andthe leading character seems too much of a cocky, arrogant, narcissistto be really very appealing, except to hope somehow something wouldhappen all of which is a great distraction to the enjoyment of thisquite captivating fusion of honor for France and pure fantasy. UnlikeThe League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003), this awkward attempt tomesh period historical setting and history with legend and then theadapted imagination of what is becoming a photographic technique ofslow motion action that will also be found in this year's SherlockHolmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) and the special effects elements ofThe Matrix (1999) which in a few cases weren't as technical wellproduced with obvious artificial appearing elements in a number ofcases, especially in the beginning. Whether or more straight forwardversion in the The Man in the Iron Mask (1998) along with a tightscript and the vision of this director might have come up with a betterproduct it's difficult to tell. The characters of the royal court alsowere underdeveloped a bit and could have been fleshed out a little moreto great impact. Milla Jovovich is the surprise package in this movie,who is demonstrating a wider range of acting, from the more innocent,naive but superior being of The Fifth Element (1997), though even hercharacter seems to be off balanced in contrast to the other characters- there doesn't seem any sufficiently strong character tocounterbalance her presence. The beginning is both compelling andoff-putting...the twist being a nice opening plot surprise, much likesomething one would find in a James Bond movie but then itscinematography seems markedly different from the rest of the movie tosomewhat of a confusing distraction as to tone and pacing for the restof the movie. Overall, this is a credible, creative, and action themedmovie, but due to its dissonate elements, to keeps this movie frombeing one of the blockbusters of the year.
Guy (20 April 2012)
THE THREE MUSKETEERS sees honour, chivalry, romance and adventure meet the MTV generation...and lose
Plot: Four swordsmen must stop the intrigues of a villainous Cardinalto prevent war between England and France.This is less an adaptation than the desecration of a very fine book.The characters are thoroughly bowdlerised: the Musketeers are now acynical special forces team, disbanded after their last mission wentsour; Milady is an implausible ninja; Buckingham literally a moustachetwirling villain; Planchet a repulsive oaf; D'Artagnan an obnoxious,cocky American teenager. Nearly everyone is miscast. The values thatsustain the book - faith, honour and chivalry - are omitted orattacked. The whole thing look like a cartoon, there are gaping plotholes (the attack on the Tower of London), bad green-screen,over-choreographed fights that confuse quantity for quality, andendless pointless shots of maps and cities. Only Orlando Bloom'sludicrously foppish portrayal of the Duke of Buckingham entertains, forall its one-dimensional depth.Worth no viewings (see the 1973 version instead).
Megan (20 April 2012)
This movie was pretty awesome :)
I will admit, it was a bit cheesy and clichéd, but I was prettyentertained. It wasn't always historically accurate, but come on, it'sjust a movie. From my limited knowledge about the book, it's not thathistorically accurate, either. I've read about Queen Anne and KingLouis and from my knowledge, they were nothing like they were portrayedin the movie or in the book. I actually like the way the movie wasdone, because I never really liked the characters the way they wereportrayed in other movies. And I will admit that I've never actuallyfinished the book. I find it hard to follow Alexandre Dumas-I tried toread The Count of Monte Cristo as well, and never finished it, but Ithoroughly enjoyed the movie, as different as it was from the book.Normally, though, I prefer books to movies, but this is a rare case.But anyhoo, the movie was pretty funny, and there was plenty ofentertaining sword fighting, too :) It was the best version of theThree Musketeers I've ever seen-and I've seen about three differentversions. There was one from the 40s or 50s in black and white that Ienjoyed, but this was much better :)
collipal-1 (19 April 2012)
Insipid and tedious
Among the books I obsessively read during my childhood, I can mentionRobin Hood, Tom Sawyer, Journey to the Center of the Earth and TheThree Musketeers. Of them, I think the last one is the one which mostluck has had in its film adaptations, from the pure acrobatic pleasureof Gene Kelly (1912-1996) as D'Artagnan in 1948, to the entertainingversion made by Disney in 1993. However, the new film The ThreeMusketeers (2011) tried to add something totally new to the recipe,because it re-interprets the venerable novel as a "steampunk" adventurefull of retro technology, martial arts and stunts in slow-motion. Iknow it sounds ridiculous, but it could have produced a goodresult...if the film had told an interesting story as an endorsement ofits over-designed visual style.This revisionist interpretation of The Three Musketeers probably costmore than all the previous movies together, and it is easy to note thebig effort from the designers, builders and special effects techniciansto reach an opulent visual style. Unfortunately, all that effort waswasted in a movie with a tedious and incredibly lazy screenplay,horrible dialogs and bad direction. The Three Musketeers does not workeven as an "involuntary comedy", because the screenplay bores due tothe maddening slowness from its repetitive scenes, many of them builtwith recycled pieces we have seen in better movies.My general description of The Three Musketeers (2011) would be thefollowing: a tedious film with insipid drama occasionally interruptedby badly filmed action scenes. And what is more, Matthew Macfayden, RayStevenson and Luke Evans bring listless performances as the musketeers,and they do not have any chemistry with each other, so as aconsequence, it was impossible for me to find the intense friendshipbetween their characters credible. In conclusion, this film is afiasco, so do not waste your time nor your money with it.
aruntejay (19 April 2012)
Absolute Nonsense, silly and embarrassingly awful
It's like watching three (sorry four) Immortal musketeers going allthrough the Action.They are shot and Bombed and they also fall fromheights but not a thing happened.They look more like Superhero Zombiesrather than Musketeers.May be an Animated version could have been farbetter.The only good thing about the movie is it's cinematography.Theaction sequences are nonsense.Bullets and Arrows are shot at them butnot a thing happens to them.All the way they are heavily make-up'ed.Even though they go through drains,dust,rain and not even a singleelement of nature could ruin their make-up.Some Jokes are tried tofitted in every bit of action sequence which only adds to the worsenedmood of yours. I suggest you to better watch some marketing channel onTV, rather than going through all the unimaginable stuff this moviepossesses.
max-tvs (16 April 2012)
Very Enjoyable, Pure Entertainment
After seeing this film twice I can honestly say that you would be hardpressed to find something more entertaining in 2011. The movie containsaction that rivals Micheal Bay films mixed with a swashbuckling tongueand cheek mood in order to create a quite unique and amazing actionmovie. Whilst at some points the dialogue and acting can feel awkwardthe visuals in this movie a nothing short of stunning. That is not tosay it's something of Zack Snyder type film (300, Watchmen and SuckerPunch) as this film actually has likable characters that aren't simplyone dimensional caricatures. The set pieces, costume and setting havebeen carefully crafted allowing you the luxury of suspending your senseof disbelief in even the most ridiculous scenes. 3D cinema has had somemajor issues since day one. The Three Musketeers' 3D isn't free fromproblems but it is definitely head and shoulders above anything else todate. In my opinion The Three Musketeers is the first movie where 3D isactually beneficial to the experience. This is not a film were youshould expect swords to pop out on screen screen and stab you in theface,but a film that using 3D technology adds depth and is moreimmersive. Needless to say this is an exceptionally fun movie which acouple difficulties in the script and some misplaced American accentscan't ruin. This movie does not take itself too seriously and norshould you. Definitely don't miss this one! Enjoy
Nasty Nesty (16 April 2012)
It really isn't that bad
I don't understand why this film is getting so many bad reviews.If people would bother watching the trailer, they'd know that itdoesn't quite stick to the original story (ie: there are flyingmachines) but who cares? Get used to this, they call it Hollywood.I watched the film and it was just what I expected; a bit of action, abit of romance, good special effects and the Musketeers saving the day.What's wrong with that? There are many movies about the ThreeMusketeers and they all are quite similar. At least this one tries tobe a bit different.My recommendation is watch it when you want to chill out and fancy a"no brainer".
ShiverKill (16 April 2012)
It's a 12A, bare that in mind!
The Three Musketeers, well first of all, it has very well knownactors/actresses in it such as Matthew Macfadyan, Luke Evans, RayStevenson as the Musketeers, you have Logan Lerman, Orlando Bloom,James Corden, Milla Jovovich, Gabriella Wilde and Christoph Waltz, sogreat cast for this film. Now with this great cast you would expect agreat film right? Well that's exactly what it is! It has a decentamount of fighting in it, great acting and a bit of romance, that youknow is there and that it's a thing and all but it's not in you'reface, which I like. Now the only main problem I had with it, is thatthere was no blood, which is stupid because like I said they is a lotof fighting. So that annoyed me just a little but then again I had toremind myself that it's a 12A! so of course there wouldn't be anyhorrid stuff in it. I liked the film, I thought it was well-made with agreat cast, I just would've liked it to have some blood in it, so maybethey should've made it a 15 instead! But there you go. It's a goodfilm! would recommend to watch!
estebangonzalez10 (15 April 2012)
Yet another failed attempt of bringing The Three Musketeers to the big screen
¨All for one and one for all¨ Here comes another adaptation ofAlexandre Dumas's famous novel of the same name, this time directed byPaul W.S. Anderson (the guy responsible for bringing us the ResidentEvil franchise game to the big screen). I have to admit I was a fan ofthe Resident Evil movies, but that is about the only films I enjoycoming from Anderson, and with The Three Musketeers that only makes myposition even stronger. This film was totally massacred by Alex Litvakand Andrew Davies, the men responsible for adapting the screenplay.It's really hard to bring such a famous novel to the big screen andmost films have failed in doing so, but I have to admit this is one ofthe weakest efforts. Anderson really takes his work lightly here andtries to give us a modern version of the Three Musketeers, but despiteall the special effects he does nothing to make these charactersinteresting. They are all entirely one dimensional with no exceptions.There are several talented actors in this film, but not even ChristophWaltz as the infamous Cardinal Richelieu seemed to fit the part. Beinga musketeer is what every boy dreams of, but after watching this filmmy guess is that very few will feel like being Athos, Aramis, Porthos,or D'Artagnan because the film focused on the special effects, flyingships, explosions, rather than on the great characters that Dumascreated in his novel. The Three Musketeers should focus on thecharacters, not on the special effects. Anderson tried to approach thisnovel in a much lighter way, but it didn't work at all. The film feltempty, the characters had a huge void, and the best performancesactually came from the villains than the heroes.Everyone who is familiar with Dumas's novel or that has seen any of itsnumerous film adaptations knows the plot. We are first introduced toour main characters: the three musketeers; Athos (Matthew Macfadyen),Aramis (Luke Evans), and Porthos (Ray Stevenson) who serve as KingLouis XIII (Freddie Fox) of France's personal guards. However thereseems to be no much more need for the three musketeers since CardinalRichelieu (Christoph Waltz) has everything under control with hisspecial guards who serve under the leadership of Rochefort (MadsMikkelsen). The King is too young and naive to control the country andthe Cardinal wants to take advantage of that and take over the kingdom.The three musketeers spend most of their time getting drunk andstarting fights with Richelieu's guards. Their descent began a year agowhen Athos was deceived by his lover Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich)who stole some secret plans from them containing information on apowerful weapon, and gave them to the Duke of Buckingham (OrlandoBloom) so now England can have the advantage over France if a possiblewar ensues. This is exactly what Richelieu wants: to provoke a war sothe people of France rely on a much stronger leader, himself. This iswhere D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) enters the scene; the son of a formermusketeer himself sets out to Paris in order to become one himself.Despite being hot headed and young, he inspires the rest of themusketeers with the values they have long lost: courage and fidelity tothe King.A film about the Three Musketeers should focus on the characters, butthis movie like most of its predecessors fails to do so. Logan Lerman,known for his work in Percy Jackson & the Olympians doesn't have thecharisma that his character, D'Artagnan needed. The three musketeersaren't developed really well either as the movie decides to focus moreon the special effects and the action rather than on the characters.One would also expect a lot more sword fighting in this movie, butthere are actually more explosions and gunshots than anything else. Theheroes aren't done justice in this film and I was disappointed despitenot expecting much from it either. I have to admit it's always adifficult task to bring a highly loved novel to the big screen, andAnderson isn't the right guy for the job as he is mostly known forfocusing on the action rather than on the characters. The ThreeMusketeers isn't a terrible film; it just doesn't do the story justice.Some people may enjoy this light film since it is nonstop action, butit just wasn't what I was expecting. There are some funny sceneshowever involving Orlando Bloom's character and his discussions aboutfashion with King Louis. Those were the highlights of the film for me,and that is about it. I didn't have a terrible time either, I justdon't think the three musketeers were made justice.http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20