The Three Musketeers

The Three Steampunk Musketeers or Anderson Saves Himself. It was starting to seem as if Paul W.S. Anderson would spend the rest of his life alternating between hastily made B-movies and ever more sequels of Resident Evil. But then came an adventurous spectacle that is everything a boy's moviegoing soul could have wished for. A celebration of courage, a showcase of inventions, an action-packed romp, and an ode to Milla Jovovich's legs (a well-deserved one). Most praiseworthy, however, is that Alexander Dumas isn't rolling over in his grave. The arrangement of characters, familiar plot twists, and the central message about friendship and loyalty – it's all here. Only the overblown metrosexuality of the French king might somewhat disrupt Dumas's peaceful slumber. But I'll gladly forgive that too. For some of us, we will be dreaming tonight about airships, swords, and Constance. Though not necessarily in that order. (03/02/2013)

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)

Subjectively, the film fulfills everything you imagine in the phrase "The Three Musketeers directed by Paul Anderson," in a wholly positive sense. The trailers promised that it would be a blast. The inventive action combined with a superb cast, where everyone enjoys their role to the fullest, brings smiles of satisfaction to the audience’s faces. However, there are issues in the passages without any action, where perhaps it's not so much the gibberish dialogue that bothers us, but rather the fact that it has no pizzazz and lacks even the slightest bit of unpredictability. This means that you’ll simply know that Lerman will be a (likable) brat until the end and that the main three characters will be serving up catchphrases even if airships are falling from the sky. I'm not disappointed, I just think Anderson needs a tighter dramaturgical whip on him, and then he'll serve up one Death Race after another. :) 3 ½. (09/02/2012)

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)

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. (04/03/2012)