Reviews

The Three Musketeers

1

On the plus side, no Bryan Adams

For anybody who thought the one thing missing from Alexandre Dumas’ classic story of swashbuckling derring-do was giant anachronistic airships, Paul WS Anderson’s silly action-based adaptation will be the answer to their prayers.

Everyone else will be praying for this preposterous folly – released, inevitably, in eye-gouging 3D – to stop committing the sort of artistic vandalism the 1993 Brat Pack version could only dream of.

Musketeers gets so many things wrong it’s difficult to know where to start. With Logan Lerman’s D’Artagnan maybe, an American-accented stripling with the hair of a Springer Spaniel? Orlando Bloom’s bouffanted bad guy, a smirking fop with more mince than a meat pie? Or perhaps Milla Jovovich’s Milady, a vamping minx whose dresses prove no bar to her scrapping and somersaulting as if she’s in The Matrix?

Given all that nonsense, it is hardly surprising the titular trio get lost in the crush. Then again, that might well be down to their dull contributions, the combination of Matthew Macfadyen’s funereal delivery as Athos, Ray Stevenson’s hackneyed Oliver Reed impression as Porthos and Luke Evans’ monkish earnestness as Aramis making them three of the most mundane heroes in recent memory.

With Christoph Waltz as a scheming Cardinal Richelieu and Mads Mikkelsen as his one-eyed muscle Rochefort, Anderson’s picture does not want for recognisable faces.

What it lacks in abundance, alas, is élan, panache or joie de vivre. Instead, a series of over-cooked set pieces (an opening raid on a Venice vault, a dirigible face-off above Notre Dame) turn what might have been a zesty frolic into one huge, lumbering behemoth.

Who cares if the Musketeers retrieve the diamond necklace on which the marriage and security of France’s callow young king (Freddie Fox) depends? Not us, and not Anderson either, the Resident Evil director seeming more concerned with giving wife Jovovich extra scenes and setting up a sequel few will hanker for.

Verdict:

All for one maybe, but one for all? Not quite. Although starry, lavish and superficially spectacular, this version of the perennial old favourite isn’t likely to endure.

Film Details

User Reviews

    • fuzzcaminski

      Oct 11th 2011, 12:18

      What's wrong Dalidab, did Total Film besmirch Logan Beiber's respectable name? Did they honestly report that a terrible looking film is infact, terrible? It looks lazy, lacking and disappointing, and by looks of this review, is a lazy, lacking and disappointing film!

      Alert a moderator

    • ChrisWootton

      Oct 11th 2011, 12:35

      It looks so s**t that I would be spending all my time in the cinema trying to find the flush.

      Alert a moderator

    • writerdave87

      Oct 11th 2011, 13:14

      Let's be honest, the only one stupid enough to think this would actually be good was Dalidab. The unholy union of Logan Lerhman and Paul WS Anderson was only ever going to result in something resembling terminal diarrhoea.

      Alert a moderator

    • writerdave87

      Oct 11th 2011, 13:14

      'They'll pay for this'? How? You going to set your myopic hipster psychopathic brother on them?

      Alert a moderator

    • chrisb1983

      Oct 11th 2011, 13:15

      Back in March I commented that I would rather drink Kool-Aid than watch this and this review has justified my statement. Paul WS Anderson's sole purpose in hollywood is to give his wife an acting career. I would rather watch an Uwe Boll film than anything churned out by this hack

      Alert a moderator

    • chrisb1983

      Oct 11th 2011, 13:18

      I am now going to watch the Richard Lester version and pretend that all this isn't happening

      Alert a moderator

    • chickensandwich

      Oct 11th 2011, 13:26

      I think dalidab is a Total Film employee whose job it is to increase comments .

      Alert a moderator

    • writerdave87

      Oct 11th 2011, 13:59

      I think dalidab is a fictional character created by Paul WS Anderson.

      Alert a moderator

    • abberline

      Oct 11th 2011, 14:47

      wow.paul ws anderson in s**te film shocker.never woulda guessed. . .

      Alert a moderator

    • BobbyTwoTimes

      Oct 11th 2011, 15:16

      I think Dalidab is a bellend!

      Alert a moderator

    • Siban1982

      Oct 11th 2011, 15:36

      I expect, much like the film, this review was quite predictable. Anderson is soon becoming the long lost brother of Uwe Boll.

      Alert a moderator

    • marc96

      Oct 11th 2011, 15:46

      not surprised by this review, i enjoy the old 3 musketeers but this looks extremely awful. I dont mind some of Paul ws Andersons films (not many though) but i think i'll give this film a watch when its on sky movies rather than cinema or dvd.

      Alert a moderator

    • Hadouken76

      Oct 11th 2011, 20:12

      FFS an AIRSHIP?? MIlla doing a limbo-slide while shooting things. AGAIN!! When will Anderson realise that his post-Event Horizon legacy is a river of sh*t?

      Alert a moderator

    • KerrAvon

      Oct 11th 2011, 21:03

      Hardly a great surprise considering how bad the trailer was. If you took all the money spent on this movie, wages for talent, locations, catering, legal and so on I wonder how many people it would have help lift out of poverty? I blame you Anderson, you and your wife for delivering sh*t movie and movie. Shame on the pair of you.

      Alert a moderator

    • Gav83

      Oct 11th 2011, 21:33

      Another pile of sh!te from Anderson. How this guy can still get a movie made blows my mind.

      Alert a moderator

    • chrisb1983

      Oct 12th 2011, 12:00

      I would rather see them wheel out Richard Chamberlain, Michael York, Frank Finlay, Raquel Welch and Christopher Lee (with a bottle of whiskey replacing Oliver Reed) again. Seeing them discuss liver spots and the queues at the Post Office would be more watchable!

      Alert a moderator

    • deedeedragons

      Oct 12th 2011, 13:08

      5

      The Charlie Sheen version is a guilty pleasure of sorts but only because of Oliver Platt & Tim Curry.

      Alert a moderator

    • Seedorf

      Oct 12th 2011, 14:53

      Uwe Boll, has got nothing on P WS Anderson. At least Anderson made one good film. I can't think of one Uwe Boll film that wasn't a pile of manure.

      Alert a moderator

    • badger86

      Oct 12th 2011, 16:55

      dalidab, you don't actually read these comments properly before you start spouting s**t do you?

      Alert a moderator

    • writerdave87

      Oct 12th 2011, 20:29

      Tbh I'd make a comment about how stupid totally misreading Seedorf's comment was, but considering Dalidab goes on to say how he thinks Alone in the Dark, Dungeon Siege and Far Cry are good and that Paul WS Anderson has made only two bad films, I think he's doing an admirable job of making himself look like a complete moron all by himself...

      Alert a moderator

    • dirtyredd

      Oct 14th 2011, 2:05

      Seriously, Paul WS Anderson is a movie butcher. If I see his name attached to a film I hope and prey that he doesn't botch it, but 9 times out of 10 he does. He's messed up movies with such great promise (AvsP, Resident Evil, Mortal Kombat). The only movies of his that I find watchable were Death Race and Event Horizon, and even those could've been better. He's not nearly as bad as Uwe Boll, though.

      Alert a moderator

    • NunianVonFuch

      Oct 14th 2011, 18:12

      My scores Paul WS Anderson's best: Event Horizon 4/5 Uwe Boll's best: Rampage 3/5 They're pretty much neck and neck on overall quality, each having moments of quality in lackluster movies but Uwe Boll's are more fun to laugh at with mates whilst Anderson's seem too po-faced and filled with MTV edits to enjoy at all. His films leave me numb and reaching for the remote, Uwe's at least give me a laugh and he usually has some decent actors slumming it. It's kinda like which flavour of turd do you like the most.

      Alert a moderator

    • StevePotter

      Oct 16th 2011, 7:57

      This movie seemed like it'd be really fun and really stupid. But I suppose I can wait for Netflix. At the very least, it'll probably have some riff value.

      Alert a moderator

    • chaosdefined

      Oct 21st 2011, 12:37

      Faithful adaptation? I don't remember the original book involving airships, Milady DeWinter flipping around firing pistols and dodging bullets or half the amount of ludicrous tripe I saw in that trailer. Paul WS Anderson, like Michael Bay, are only successful because there are those with low enough standards and intelligence to not care about logic, story or character so long as they get to see pretty girls and big explosions.

      Alert a moderator

    • ChrisWootton

      Oct 21st 2011, 12:56

      Dalidab your opinion is as welcome as a cgi airship. Thats MY opinion and I respect that. You on the other hand can f**k right off

      Alert a moderator

    • dumasfan

      Oct 31st 2011, 2:15

      1

      Frankly, this film SUCKED. I am a big fan of the book, having read it over many times as well as the sequels. I also read as much as I could find on the historical background of the period in which it was set. As a student of costume design, I researched the clothing that was worn at the time as well. I have seen almost all the film adaptations of the novel, so I was prepared to forgive a certain amount of tinkering with the plot. Almost from the beginning, though, I found the performances wooden and found it difficult to suspend my disbelief. Even my teenage daughter told me the opening scene in Venice screamed "SET" to her. Once Milady began prancing around, I struggled even more. The actress seemed to be modeling the clothes she wore, striking poses as if she were on a runway. I started to suspect that this movie was going nowhere when it got to the scene where she stripped down to her skivvies to go rob the queen's jewel vault. But the final straw had to be when Cardinal Richelieu answered a question by saying "Yup!" WTH? Athos also says, "Nope!" later on in the movie. Planchet was also horrible. The bits of comedic business thrown in involving him were not funny and seemed very out of place. And the food he ends up carrying out of the palace grounds at the end...was that a plate of Jello? Amazing! The costumes were really the only redeeming feature of this horrible film, but Orlando Bloom's hair had me in stitches. It looked like nothing more than a mutant 50's DA. I got the distinct impression that at some point, Mr. Bloom gave up trying to make anything out of this role. The lack of character development left my daughters wondering why the characters were acting as they did. I could only recommend sotto voce to read the book, which was far better than the movie ever could be. The special effects were interesting, but there was nothing that could not be seen in other films, in fact, several other films, as it was hodgepodge of effects that have been better used elsewhere. Most tiresome was to find that the last scene in the movie involved a rescued Milady, who managed to survive a fall of several thousand feet into the open sea. I had figured she wasn't dead (though I desperately wished she was), but they could have at least given her a parachute, easily concealed beneath those detachable skirts of hers, to adequately explain her rather improbable survival. And then the glad tidings that it ain't over, 'cause Orly is going to get his revenge. After this clinker, I would be most amazed if they ever make another one.

      Alert a moderator

    • Igrayne

      Nov 3rd 2011, 8:24

      Something wrong with mentioning Frank Finlay? Milla Jovovich is so fing boring she gives people diarrhea, I wish people would stop calling him Paul WS Anderson, his name is Paul Anderson who gives a toss if they have middle names, the worse they get the more initials as if people will forget how bollocks they are because now they have more names and are infact a different person, yeah. c**p film c**p cast awful directing but then it is Paul Anderson and Milla Jovovich, surprise.

      Alert a moderator

Most Popular