The Three Musketeers

The Three Musketeers is a visually beautiful and rich spectacle in which lovers of eye-candy will find their own. In terms of story and acting, however, it is pure average. I don't exactly do a double take on the pompous and arrogant Musketeer talk, of which there was a serious abundance. Of the actors, I was most impressed by the great Christoph Waltz as Cardinal Richelieu and the funniest character was Planchet. (27/06/2013)

Unlike most other users, I actually quite liked the 1993 version. If nothing else, it had quality action and a top-notch cast. But that’s the core of the problem, that version was a grandiose and high-budget production that had great ambitions but ultimately failed, as it did not meet the expectations of die-hard fans of the book and previous films. This current version has no ambitions, other than entertain, and the audience, for sure this time, did not expect anything at all – logically, they could not have been disappointed. If we truly look at it objectively, it is unbelievably off the mark compared to the source material. It is evident that the director disregarded all previous adaptations and made this one his own way. It is funny, the actors are good, and it doesn't lack traditional European action flair (fast-paced scenes, cuts), as well as a few adorable moments. I couldn't neglect the excellent Mads Mikkelsen, who always gives a worthwhile performance no matter the role. In terms of entertainment, it meets the standard, but in terms of art or any other film-making value, it falls 20 thousand leagues below par. (03/03/2012)

These Three Musketeers are something completely different than you would expect. And that’s actually a good thing. After all, what good would it do me to watch the same story over and over again, just with different actors? This story is always taken very seriously not only from a historical point of view and at times gets quite romantic. Anderson took the originally story, fucked around with it, gave it a thrashing, abused it and this is the result – a completely zany ride which makes no sense whatsoever but entertains. And that’s the most important thing. You must take it as entertainment, not as a historical tale. Then it works, and rather well at that. The actors also understood this and I must say that I had quite a good time with them. I laughed and got to see the musketeers as a bonus. (03/12/2012)

In his modern interpretation, "Paul W. S. Anderson honors the realities of the story and intends his modern rendition to approach the narrative quality of the original literary work." I laughed again at the official distributor text. I will admit, though, that these Three Musketeers are better the second time around than the first time. The second time around, I knew what to expect - unprecedented, but quite entertaining stupidity with airship fights, action scenes that beat anything from Anderson's Resident Evil, likable heroes and beautiful cleavage... namely women. Why not? (19/02/2012)

A little more sophisticated Uwe Boll, which unfortunately doesn't change the fact that a grave robber like Paul W.S. Anderson should never have come close to such a substance. Moreover, this mixture of clumsy borrowings of pirate playfulness and Ritchie cunning is completely walled off by the director's inability to come up with anything stylishly consistent. Some of the shots of Milla Jovovich suggest that Paul is probably henpecked at home. I understand that it's nice to show how his wife is still the same thunderous female at a more advanced age, but unfortunately Anderson proves that he, too, is still the same dumbass at his age. Two just for Mads, who (again) has no eye and is demonic (again). (18/10/2011)