6/10
Entertaining if heavily flawed
22 October 2011
To be honest, I was expecting The Three Musketeers to be much worse than it turned out. Is it flawed? Yes, and in a very heavy way. But is it that bad? Personally I don't think so. While there were much better movies this year such as Drive and Tree of Life, there have been much worse such as Spy Kids 4 and Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star.

Starting with The Three Musketeers' problems, it is under-characterised, particularly with Lerman's D'Artagnan. For me, the most interesting character was Richelieu. The writing is often very cheesy and anachronistic, with Lerman and Bloom getting the worst of it, though there are some nice snappy moments too with McFadyen, Mikelssen and Waltz.

The story is a wonderful one, and is well paced generally, however I would have liked more with D'Artagnan and the three musketeers.However, I do think the film looks fantastic. The costumes are beautiful, the Bavarian scenery is stunning and the cinematography is appropriately skillful. The music is suitably rousing and energetic, the direction was decent and the swordplay and stunts are fun and terrifically paced.

In regards to the acting, it was generally good. Logan Lerman is handsome and charming if rather flat, likewise with Freddie Fox. Orlando Bloom and Milla Jovovich didn't blow me over I admit, however they were both much better than anticipated.

When I first heard of Bloom as Buckingham to me it screamed of disaster, that said he was much less painful than I thought, his dialogue was bad but the performance was okay relying less on the all-looks gimmick. Jovovich is attractive and suitably cunning though I would've liked more of a haunting quality to Milady.

On the other hand, Matthew MacFadyen is perhaps the coolest Athos I've seen and James Corden is suitably oafish as Planchet. Luke Evans and Ray Stevenson give good support as Aramis and Porthos. The two best actors were Christoph Waltz, who is pitch perfect(as usual) as Richelieu, and Mads Mikelssen as a sinister Rochefort.

All in all, an entertaining if flawed movie. Those looking for a faithful adaptation, even with the references, will be disappointed, those willing to look past this and take it for what it is(like me) will enjoy it. Of the adaptations of the Dumas masterpiece, look no further than the 1973 Richard Lester film for the definitive version, with that said this was good enough to pass an hour and three quarters or so. 6/10 Bethany Cox
14 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed