Adventure comedy, farce. A film adaptation (free of course, even very free) of the eponymous and famous novel by the French writer Alexandre Dumas. I had the honor to read the book source myself some time ago, so I can and will compare it with this film adaptation, which was directed by Sergey Zhigunov (who, according to Dumas, has already staged a number of TV series in our country). I admit that I was inspired to watch the new French film adaptation of 2023 called "The Three Musketeers D"Artagnan" (which is bad, and read the details in the hotel review), so I wanted to see our version, Russian, so to speak, and here's my brief opinion - A very cheerful comedy on the topic of Dumas. There were both pros and cons in the series that are worth talking about. Therefore, we finish such an important introduction and get to the point.
So, the pros: 1. Comedy, farce - this series cannot be called a drama or a famously twisted action movie, it is an adventure comedy that is interesting to watch (if you forget about all the disadvantages of course). The screenwriters turned the story of Dumas into a frank circus tent with levitating donkeys, the absurdity of what is happening, a kindergarten, an attempt to play serious, some semblance of political intrigue. Our four are joking almost non-stop, Porthos and the young Gascon are especially good in this regard, and the others have tried their best. Again, it's interesting to watch, and you can even laugh about it. That's what the creators clearly succeeded (unlike everything else, except for the second point).
2. Costumes and scenery - filmed on location, those who know will immediately see Tsarskoye Selo, Vyborg and the famous Bohemian castles. Things and household items also add a good authenticity to what is happening, so the viewer feels almost in France in the first half of the seventeenth century. The costumes also pleased (the Musketeers, and everyone else, do not look like bums, unlike the new French version of 2023). I cannot vouch for the absolute similarity of the costumes, but there are common motifs with that era (judging by the portraits of notable persons of that time).
And there is also no dirt, both literally (the clothes look neat) and figuratively, although you will practically not see blood here (and if early film adaptations could be forgiven, then there are no new ones).
So, the cons: 1. Actors - only Vasily Semenovich Lanovoy, who plays Cardinal Richelieu, is suitable for the role here, and all the others are too far from their characters: Rinal Mukhametov is a crazy impudent man who does not look like an aristocrat at all (and in the book the Gascon was more modest), Yuri Chursin is too young for the role of Athos (the most the eldest of the four Musketeers) and hoarseness cannot hide his young age (thirty-something years old, which again contradicts the book), Alexey Makarov is a clown who is far from even Porthos Smirtinsky (not to mention the book), Philip Yankovsky - this is far from Louis the Thirteenth (moreover, the actor should have been given the role of the Duke of Buckingham, there he would have looked much more convincing, and Philip's age is not suitable for the role of the king's boy), Ekaterina Vilkova is just a mockery of the image of the insidious Milady, Alexander Lykov is a clown and not De Treville and so on next. It doesn't make sense to list all of them, otherwise the review will be delayed. Sergey Zhigunov picked up the actors very badly for this film adaptation, well, very badly. Not convincing at all. I think there's no point in even stuttering about acting - it's at zero, except for Lanovoy and Yankovsky.
2. The script is a mixture of book events (duel, suspensions, confrontation with the cardinal, Constance's death, the siege of La Rochelle, the search and execution of Milady) and of course the writers' own imagination, and all this does not go well together. And if with the addition of book episodes, which were not in the Soviet film adaptation, in general everything is not bad (but also not good), then with the fantasy on the topic it turned out extremely badly. After all, this film adaptation is not a retelling of Dumas, but a comedy, a farce and a kind of fantasy on the topic. It is only thanks to humor that these ten episodes can be watched.
3. The logic and behavior of the characters - aha, the Count De la Fere personally hung My Lady in his own garden, and she survived after that - aha, we believed it of course! The siege camp near La Rochelle is such a passageway, whoever wants to, comes and goes. A conversation between a Gascon and a cardinal is like an interview at Gazprom, but not at all like a conversation between a young nobleman and the first minister of France and so on. The creators did not even bother to read at least one book (or article) about the manners and customs of that time, in order to at least do something similar in their series.
It is also important to note the work of the operator, who built angles in the filming locations so that modernity did not fall into the frame.
This series deserved a four out of ten, but close to the top five, because the creators at least made a good comedy, and they don't have airships over Paris (unlike the American picture of 2011), and everything is clean in the frame (which is nonsense for Russian modern cinema). I did not consider the full-length version, because it would not accommodate everything, so I immediately chose the series.
Okay, we've finished with this film adaptation, let's see what's there with the French 1961 (which is considered by many to be the best), we'll take a look, I hope "many" will not deceive us.
My rating is 4 out of 10 and I do not recommend this picture for viewing!
So, the pros: 1. Comedy, farce - this series cannot be called a drama or a famously twisted action movie, it is an adventure comedy that is interesting to watch (if you forget about all the disadvantages of course). The screenwriters turned the story of Dumas into a frank circus tent with levitating donkeys, the absurdity of what is happening, a kindergarten, an attempt to play serious, some semblance of political intrigue. Our four are joking almost non-stop, Porthos and the young Gascon are especially good in this regard, and the others have tried their best. Again, it's interesting to watch, and you can even laugh about it. That's what the creators clearly succeeded (unlike everything else, except for the second point).
2. Costumes and scenery - filmed on location, those who know will immediately see Tsarskoye Selo, Vyborg and the famous Bohemian castles. Things and household items also add a good authenticity to what is happening, so the viewer feels almost in France in the first half of the seventeenth century. The costumes also pleased (the Musketeers, and everyone else, do not look like bums, unlike the new French version of 2023). I cannot vouch for the absolute similarity of the costumes, but there are common motifs with that era (judging by the portraits of notable persons of that time).
And there is also no dirt, both literally (the clothes look neat) and figuratively, although you will practically not see blood here (and if early film adaptations could be forgiven, then there are no new ones).
So, the cons: 1. Actors - only Vasily Semenovich Lanovoy, who plays Cardinal Richelieu, is suitable for the role here, and all the others are too far from their characters: Rinal Mukhametov is a crazy impudent man who does not look like an aristocrat at all (and in the book the Gascon was more modest), Yuri Chursin is too young for the role of Athos (the most the eldest of the four Musketeers) and hoarseness cannot hide his young age (thirty-something years old, which again contradicts the book), Alexey Makarov is a clown who is far from even Porthos Smirtinsky (not to mention the book), Philip Yankovsky - this is far from Louis the Thirteenth (moreover, the actor should have been given the role of the Duke of Buckingham, there he would have looked much more convincing, and Philip's age is not suitable for the role of the king's boy), Ekaterina Vilkova is just a mockery of the image of the insidious Milady, Alexander Lykov is a clown and not De Treville and so on next. It doesn't make sense to list all of them, otherwise the review will be delayed. Sergey Zhigunov picked up the actors very badly for this film adaptation, well, very badly. Not convincing at all. I think there's no point in even stuttering about acting - it's at zero, except for Lanovoy and Yankovsky.
2. The script is a mixture of book events (duel, suspensions, confrontation with the cardinal, Constance's death, the siege of La Rochelle, the search and execution of Milady) and of course the writers' own imagination, and all this does not go well together. And if with the addition of book episodes, which were not in the Soviet film adaptation, in general everything is not bad (but also not good), then with the fantasy on the topic it turned out extremely badly. After all, this film adaptation is not a retelling of Dumas, but a comedy, a farce and a kind of fantasy on the topic. It is only thanks to humor that these ten episodes can be watched.
3. The logic and behavior of the characters - aha, the Count De la Fere personally hung My Lady in his own garden, and she survived after that - aha, we believed it of course! The siege camp near La Rochelle is such a passageway, whoever wants to, comes and goes. A conversation between a Gascon and a cardinal is like an interview at Gazprom, but not at all like a conversation between a young nobleman and the first minister of France and so on. The creators did not even bother to read at least one book (or article) about the manners and customs of that time, in order to at least do something similar in their series.
It is also important to note the work of the operator, who built angles in the filming locations so that modernity did not fall into the frame.
This series deserved a four out of ten, but close to the top five, because the creators at least made a good comedy, and they don't have airships over Paris (unlike the American picture of 2011), and everything is clean in the frame (which is nonsense for Russian modern cinema). I did not consider the full-length version, because it would not accommodate everything, so I immediately chose the series.
Okay, we've finished with this film adaptation, let's see what's there with the French 1961 (which is considered by many to be the best), we'll take a look, I hope "many" will not deceive us.
My rating is 4 out of 10 and I do not recommend this picture for viewing!