The Three Musketeers (2011) User Reviews

More adventurous & more fun

[Naughtia_Nah · 7/10 · 15 April 2012]

I actually liked this movie. I've seen many musketeer movies through the years and this one wasn't the best one in my opinion but it was certainly not the worst either. It has a lot of adventure and cool scenes with good special effects.

I did not expect to see Milla Jovovich in a movie like this but she really pulled it off. And it was pretty nice seeing Orlando Bloom playing a villain for a change, I've had the feeling that he always plays the a character with same qualities in almost every movie (Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Kingdom of Heaven etc).

This movie is much more adventurous and wild than the '93 version and in my opinion these two can't really be compared because they are made for different audiences. All in all this is a great movie to watch together with your friends.

Again an intrepid young D'Artagnan along with three legendary Musketeers have to fight Milady of Winter and villainous Cardinal Richelieu

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 1 May 2014]

Lavish scenarios , spectacular action , court intrigue and exciting swordplay . Last version based on Alexandre Dumas' classic yarn of intrigue at the 17th century French court . Entertaining and fun version based on the classic Dumas novel with spectacular swordplay in nifty style , this is a modern version of the classic Dumas novel set in 17th Century France . Alexandre Dumas's source for his novel was a book by 19th-century writer Courtils de Sandraz, which was purporting to be D'Artagnan's biography ; the Musketeers were actually real people, not fictional characters created by Dumas . Producer and director Paul W.S. Anderson presents Dumas' exciting story of love and adventure , ¨The three musketeers¨ including a lot of computer especial effects , anachronisms and overwhelming aerial scenes . For this plenty FX rendition is adapted in the greatest splendor , the complete romance , the historical characters, the full novel by Alexandre Dumas though including important changes . It is packed with comedy , derring-do , intrigue , a love story , action , drama and moving swordplay . An awesome casting and big-budgeted production shot in Bavarian Studios and location make for a fairly amusement swashbuckler . This is the recent recounting of the Dumas's novel with a fine cast headed by handsome Logan Lerman as hot-headed D'Artagnan in a brave role as a young and handsome soldier of fortune , a dashing , audacious lover and nimble athlete . They must defeat a beautiful double agent and her villainous employer from seizing the French throne and engulfing Europe in war. At the beginning of the movie, the map of Europe shows several states and kingdoms of that era . This delightful adaptation based on Alexandre Dumas classic novel starts with the youngster D'Artagnan who arrives in Paris to find Mister Treville , chief of Musketeers. But he meets with three two-fisted Musketeers , rollicking adventurers , fighting to live and living to love . DÁrtagnan to be aware they are Musketeers and is invited to unite them in their objective to struggle against guards of Cardinal Richelieu well performed by Christopher Waltz and the astute Milady De Winter who is lovely as a jewel, deadly as a dagger the wickedest woman in all Christendom . Meanwhile, D'Artagnan falls in love with a gorgeous young , Constance , Gabriella Wilde , she is a golden-haired beauty entangled in a web of treachery and intrigue. Furthermore , there is developed an intrigue between Luis XIII : Freddie Fox , Queen Anne of Austria : Juno Temple , dazzling as her gilded palace for her, men dared a thousand perils , and Duke of Buckingham , Orlando Bloom ; and of course the nasty Richelieu , as evil as ever . The musketeers join forces for royal vengeance with the shout : ¨One for all and all for one¨. Then , the musketeers whose friendship has become a legend to stir the hearts of men and shouting their slogan set out to help the Queen . Straightforward as well as gallant D'Artagnan and the three musketeers scheme a plan to save her , clashing against a malicious Richelieu .

It's a nice rendition from the immortal novel with pretty budget and breathtaking scenarios . The picture contains rousing action , intrigue , romantic adventure , romance , treachery , mayhem and a lot of fence . Amusing swashbuckling with lavish production , glamorous gowns and luxurious sets . Furthermore , a vein of humour is evident here , though sometimes falling flat . For this movie itself , though , energetic and frantic are the best adjectives you could think of to describe its attraction . Charming but very young and short Logan Lerman , he bounds and leaps , fights , hits and run . Lerman executes athletic feats , moving sword-play and spectacular acrobatics , Logan performed most of the stunts in his films himself . He is accompanied by a good cast as Matthew MacFadden , Luke Evans , Ray Stevenson , Til Schweiger . Furthermore , special mention to Mads Mikkelsen , playing Rochefort, in this movie he wears an eye-patch over the very same left eye that his Le Chiffre character wept blood in Casino Royale (2006).

Adequate and colorful cinematography by Glen MacPherson stunningly showed on the splendorous images being filmed in Munich and German palaces such as Residenz in Würzburg, Lower Franconia, Bavaria . Thrilling as well as evocative musical score by Paul Haslinger , the dance music near the end is appropriate for the time period . Glamorous production design is well reflected on the luxurious interiors and exteriors stunningly filmed . Impressive sets , though many of them made by computer generator , the so called "Ring of fire" crows nest with its 31 cannons was built as a fully working version out of a mass of wood in only fourteen days by a big German company , it is on display in the Babelsberg movie studio film park. The motion picture was professionally realized by Paul W.S. Anderson . This cool filmmaker provided visual style , comedy , fencing , drama , clangorous action in equal proportions .

This classy story is subsequently remade on several versions ,as the MGM classic version in musical style by George Sidney with Gene Kelly , Paul Lukas , Gig Young , Vincent Price , Frank Morgan and Lana Turner as Milady ; 1973 amusing version by Richard Lester with Michael York, Oliver Reed and Raquel Welch ; 1993 modern adaptation by Stephen Herek with Charlie Sheen , Kiefer Sutherland, Oliver Platt and Chris O'Donnell, and 2001 rendition by Peter Hyams with Justin Chambers, Mena Suvari and Tim Roth , among others. ¨The three Musketeers¨ is an outstanding and entertaining adaptation of the classy that will appeal to the costumer genre buffs and it results to be acceptable adaptation with big budget based on the classic

A Better Film than I Thought

[viczye23 · 7/10 · 25 April 2012]

The version of the film I love the most is with Charlie Sheen and so when my other half put this on I wasn't expecting much.

It doesn't have the comedy aspect that I thought it would have but that doesn't matter to me. The bits of comedy that were there, such as the ticket giving for a horse dumping in the street was subtle but good. I found that funny, even though most people probably don't.

The visual aspects were great. Steampunk is very big in fashion at the moment and has been for the past couple of years or so, so the flying ship and some of the outfits fit very well with this theme.

Overall I thought it was an enjoyable film and would watch it again.

Worst adaptation I have ever seen...

[Dr_Sagan · 29 December 2015]

Silly movie this one but not boring. It cost $75M and it shows. There are huge problems though.

First of all we deal with a classic here, so it has a legacy that must be respected. In this version, every character is presented as a buffoon. The acting, the deliverance...

Leonardo da Vinci, we learn, has drawn up plans for a flying "war machine," a combination of dirigible and seafaring galleon. The plot and the dialogs are full of hot air like the war machine. The director is obviously thought that these were minor issues!

The action is dominated by green-screen and Matrix-like effects.

Overall: Not boring if you are 9 y.o. but a disgrace nevertheless...

All For Fun

[TourettesPersonal · 6/10 · 19 October 2011]

At first glance, we all know that this will never be a great version of The Three Musketeers but with all the flying ships and the swashbucklery, we can still give it a try. The film ends up pretty fun. Even with all the silly nonsense and the modern stuff scattered in the film. The cast made it enjoyable. The 3D is surprisingly good. But in the end, it's just another blockbuster. The film also had troubles to its pacing and the writing is a bit modern. The Three Musketeers won't end up as a classic but it can be fun in some times.

The baffle goes to the director. Paul W.S. Anderson is an unusual person to direct a film like this since he's more of a futuristic action movie guy. Adding some steampunk and plenty of slow-mos. The film didn't end up being too faithful to the original story. The director just wants to feel comfortable to his style. Modernism, Cool Devices, Hot Women, and Slow-Mo. The pacing is problematic in the second act. It shows the plan of the villains and in parts, you won't notice that it already passes another day.

The other thing about the second act, the Musketeers are mostly absent. It shows more of the antagonists and their plans. It's like Transformers where the titular characters only appear when there's danger and mostly focuses to a kid and the villains. But here, the titular characters are not bland.

Some of the cast made their scenes enjoyable. Logan Lerman does his thing. Not quite appreciating though. But his female fans will love it. The actors who played the three musketeers gives plenty of personality to their roles. Matthew Macfadyen is pretty cool as Athos. We don't get to see much Luke Evans but he is cunning as Aramis. Ray Stevenson is as usual, funny and had much character. In the antagonists, Christophe Waltz has many style of being a villain. Orlando Bloom looks like he's enjoying but a little threat in his little scenes. Mads Mikkelsen is the only serious villain among them. Milla Jovovich does her swagger and seductiveness but a little personality.

The action is pretty cool. But so much slow-mos. Just like in Resident Evil Afterlife. Slow-motion to make it cool. Anderson started these excessive slow-mos in Resident Evil 4. Maybe he thought these things will affect the 3D or maybe he just wanted to be cool. It's cool enough but when the musketeers was helping D'Artagnan to fight Rochefort's army, there is one moment of this scene that looks too similar to 300. When Athos was slashing them but here there are no blood. No matter how violent they kill, you won't see a single drop. The 3D is surprisingly good. It's almost like a gimmick but this gimmick is actually good. Swords, Bombs, Pointy Objects, and other stuff.

The production design is decent. The costumes and the setting are well made. The CGI were obviously good. The flying battleships and some CGI swords. CGI bombs. CGI background. The music score fits the whole theme but every single score repeats in every scene. The writing isn't good. Too modern. They said the S word but it's funny anyways.

Fans of the original story will definitely be disappointed with this adaptation but if you are in for some steampunk, slow-mos, swashbuckling swordfights then try watch this. It will not remain a classic or one of the best. It's not really trying to be the best. It's just a version with futuristic elements or it could be just a 3D gimmick. The movie wasn't bad as I expected but it has those flaws that aren't easy to ignore. It just wanted to be fun. It's good to watch as an action film. As an adaptation, it's good to watch right now but someday it'll be forgotten or ignored. But really, this is fun.

Alas, I seem to be out of step with everyone else

[geojohns-262-754857 · 7/10 · 26 May 2018]

Putting aside the steampunk effects (which I enjoyed) the movie stuck quite closely to the original plot. I thought that the acting was good as was the dialogue. The 3 musketeers actually looked like the 3 musketeers.James Cordon's comic turn was as good as Roy Kinnear's. Christoph Waltz was a more nuanced Richelieu than Charlton Heston. I saw my first 3 musketeer film over 60 years ago. This seems to be among the best,for my money. I rarely watch a movie more than once./ I have seen this three times and have not been bored yet

There is stupid logic, no logic and then there is...

[michael-neichl-904-632888 · 4/10 · 6 September 2011]

The three musketeers, and by god am I disappointed. I mean don't get me wrong I excepted a simple story with typical elements, nice fight scenes and a great cast that can act great. Except for the actually really cool looking fights I didn't get anything, the cast is great but the dialogs and script are so horrible even Christoph Waltz couldn't save them. The story is all over the place, you don't get to know any of the musketeers, or barely a character at all and the biggest problem: A movie doesn't have to be realistic for me but it has to make sense in his own universe of the movie (like Matrix its not realistic but logical). The three musketeers plays with the rules of physics, logic and sense of a human being like they were beanbags. Oh and surprise surprise: 3D is useless, but thats nothing new tell me a movie that really had to have 3D except for avatar or maybe tron.

Movie with a simple plot fine , one that makes no sense at all, you better don't count on my vote.

So if you can enjoy a pointless excuse of a story for some nice swordplay, have fun.

Fun Movie To Watch

[clayjardine · 7/10 · 11 May 2018]

It's not your traditional Three Musketeer's story, but I think it was a creative take on it. I can see why some people wouldn't like the changes, but I feel like they help to keep the story entertaining.

Some of the pacing in the film is weird and the actions of some characters could seem a little humorous, but overall it's a fun movie that should be entertaining to those who just want something to take them out of the real world.

Countess D'Winter sword-fighting and spinning on the wire rig

[electrobird · 1/10 · 8 June 2012]

"After failing in a scheme to steal Leonardo Da Vinci's airship blueprints, the Musketeers..."

Seriously, the writer of "Predators" and the director of "Resident Evil" decided that Alexander Dumas masterpiece was not good enough... so they decided to add "Leonardo Da Vinci's airship" and make some other "improvements" on this horrid joke of a movie. I stopped watching when I saw Countess D'Winter sword-fighting and spinning on the wire rig. I wondered how long before the zombies would show up.

As a lover of literature, I can't stand those Hollywood adaptations. Like when someone decided to cast Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes and also ignored that the detective from Baker Street never before touched a firearm and sent the most brilliant detective ever imagined on a shooting spree around London.

Anyway, it isn't hard to understand why this $75,000,000 piece of garbage flopped in the box office. This shows that the public is not as stupid as we may think. Vox populi, vox Dei.

Swashbuckling fun

[aliholly-62819 · 7/10 · 21 January 2021]

Remember when IMDB was for serious people? I miss those days. Now all we get are 1 and 10 star reviews. No flavor. All these ratings are for avid lovers of the book that can't realize a different take on a classic story. I empathize, truly. There are instances where I can't set aside my bias and I truly hate a movie because it's not faithful to my beloved book. Be that the case, I won't review the film. Anyway... So no, I haven't read The Three Musketeers, as much as I love the classics. I put this on because I was looking for a fun action film and that's what I got. One: It was visually stunning! That's really what drew me in. The costumes were flamboyant and the sets were incredible. The characters are only ok, they do lack some depth. However, this is a film in the spirit of Pirates of the Caribbean, as in its swashbuckling fun. With the exception of a few foul words, it's a relatively clean action film I can enjoy with my kids. (It's even cleaner than the Disney version). I'll watch it again.

"Nuking the fridge" is harmless in comparison to what this film does

[goebel-c · 2/10 · 3 September 2011]

First of all I ought to note that I did not expect much of this film - and yet was left completely underwhelmed.

There are some major issues regarding this film which I would like to address, they are the reason for my extraordinarily low ranking, which would have been even lower if I had not thought it disrespectful to those actors who did their job very well (against all odds).

One may argue that screen adaptations require some changes to be made to the original material, and I wholeheartedly agree, but the changes made to this particular adaption are so fundamental they might as well not have bothered to call it „The Three Musketeers". There is as good as nothing left of the original plot in this movie, and what is left of it is changed beyond recognition. I did expect it to be more action laden than ultimately necessary, I expected it to deviate from the original plot, but nothing could possibly have prepared me for this shipwreck of a film.

One might think that while a film shouldn't be required to follow the book's plot word by word to qualify for bearing the title of a famous novel - one should be able to tell it is supposed to be based on said novel, right? Apparently not. Apart from the title and the the names of the characters, there is but little that would betray it to be even roughly based on Dumas' novel. Buckingham is turned from lover to evil Lord, and Queen Anne into a blameless little lamb who fell prey to the Cardinal's machinations. No such thing as the fleur-de-lis is even mentioned. Constance doesn't only not die, she isn't even threatened by Milady. And that's just a selection.

One might be led to think it was deliberately conceived as a parody of remakes. After all, it has all the ingredients – a butchered plot, characters with any debt taken out of them (despite the fact that if given the chance, most actors would have delivered an outstanding performance, but the time usually assigned to character development is devoured by „sexy" scenes featuring Milla Jovovich – who herself is a whole other problem), references to everything from the Matrix to Mission Impossible, goodness – it even has airships.

Airships. Not one, not two, but an entire armada of airships. I understand that Rocheford's eye patch is tempting, but they might as well have put a parrot on his shoulder, it would not have managed to make it appear any more ridiculous. I was surprised they did not venture to release an air Kraken.

If this film had had less Milla Jovovich, no airships and if anyone had bothered to actually read "The Three Musketeers" beforehand, it might have been decent - and had they fixed some minor problems (like the annoyingly clean costumes and settings), it may even have been great. It certainly had the potential. It's a pity it nuked the fridge... or should I say - flew the airship?

Better than everyone says

[tonybmanx · 8/10 · 12 December 2022]

I have been greatly irritated by all of bad reviews on this film because none of the reviewers seem to understand what it is all about. It is true that the script is not actually all that great. What makes it great is how it is delivered. The cast is brilliant in playing each role in a pitch-perfect way which lends a hand to the whole tongue-in-cheek playfulness of the film. It is a film for a mood, and it is one that knows not to take itself too seriously without ever dropping the ball. The action and the effects work perfectly and the story flows like as well as anyone could ask for. It is a great action film.

About what you'd expect, possibly slightly better

[TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews · 7/10 · 15 October 2011]

Following a few minutes of Assassin's Creed footage, this presents a plan intended to start a war between England and France, and only the titular heroes can stop it. Let's start with what you're probably most interested in learning; yes, this is very much a Paul W.S. Anderson film(albeit it may be his best... though he still makes mistakes, such as setting things up that he does not follow through on, pay-off to things he only introduced seconds before it, etc.), for better or for worse, and yes, it is a fun ride if you are prepared for what it is, and you can live with it playing fast and loose with historical accuracy, and how close it is to the source material(it does include one or two notable things that I'm told are in the novel, and that we're familiar with). The action is stronger than any of his others, if he still does overuse slow-mo slightly(he goes downright 300 in one sequence, and it isn't anywhere near as good), and the scenes tend to either end too soon or go on for overly long. There are a few standout situations that I won't soon forget. This uses 3D extremely well, second only to Avatar, usually adding to the atmosphere and only a few times jabbing the audience in the face with something(one or two of those occurrences could be more effective). In general, the FX are amazing. The sets, costumes and props are gorgeous, as opulent as they ought to be. Dialog is usually bad or mediocre, with one or two clever lines. The comic relief is not funny, although this can make you chuckle(not exclusively intentionally). Vital to almost any version of The Three Musketeers is D'Artagnan, and this one is reasonable. He's not obnoxious, and he can be charming. Oh, he's flat as a board... all the characters are(another mainstay of this director). Athos, Porthos and Aramis are among the numerous well-cast actors. Milla is delicious as the deceiving double-agent Lady Winter, Waltz is spot-on as Richelieu, Mikkelsen is a despicable villain, and Fox as the king does well. In fact, the latter has to both be a laughing stock(a pathetic, childish ruler devoid of perspective) and sympathetic(he's an awkward young man in love). He pulls them off, but this really could have done better if it didn't try for so much at a time. The plot is excessively convoluted, full of holes, and in the end does not hold up to any kind of scrutiny. I recommend this to fans of Jovovich and her husband. 7/10

Good entertainment, but would have been better without anachronisms

[Naurya · 3/10 · 1 September 2011]

Before I start writing down my impressions of this movie, I have to say that "The Three Musketeers" is one of my all-time favourite books. When I heard that a new Three Musketeers film was going to be released, I was really excited - all the more when I saw pictures of the beautiful locations in Bavaria and read that Christoph Waltz ("Inglorious Basterds") would play my favourite character Richelieu. When I saw the trailer though, I was shocked: Matrix style bullet evasion? A Ninja diver? And... zeppelin air ships? WTF? I was sure Dumas was rotating in his grave over this mutilation done to his work! Really... I don't think a brilliant story like The Three Musketeers needs air ships in order to be exciting.

Despite my frustration about the trailer, I decided to go to the cinema and I have to say, it was certainly not a total waste of time and money. First of all, the costumes and locations were extremely enjoyable. I watched the movie in 2D, but viewers will surely appreciate the 3D version. There are some nice effects like a bird's view onto a painted map of France.

Most of the actors also did a great job, especially Christoph Waltz. He was amazing, just like I had always imagined Richelieu: this cool composure he has when something is not going according to his plans, but you can see how his brilliant brain is working on something new already. I also liked his interaction with the Louis XIII. The King was portrayed in a very exaggerated manner (clueless about politics, only interested in fashion and very childish), but this ironic exaggeration of his character created a lot of fun. Orlando Bloom was also great as Buckingham. You could see how he was enjoying himself in the role of the classy, spoiled and evil British ambassador. Logan Lerman as d'Artagnan surprised me positively. I thought he was just another boyish actor teenage girls will fall in love with. But he made a really good d'Artagnan and was able to show off his fencing abilities. Apparently all the fencing choreographies were done without the help of ropes or stuntmen - Respect! The final duel between Rochefort and d'Artagnan on the roof of Notre Dame was epic. It's a pity there wasn't more sword fighting instead of zeppelins. The actors of Athos, Porthos and Aramis also did a pretty good job, but had too little screen time and thus ended up as flat characters with only one trait of character each (Athos = the disillusioned drunkard, who has lost his love, Porthos = the vain daredevil, Aramis = the religious ladies' man). The musketeers as the title heroes really should be at the centre of the plot, but in this movie Milady and Buckingham got much more attention.

Too much attention in the case of Milady. First of all, Milla Jovovich is not a good actress. Neither is she especially sexy, as the movie constantly tries to suggest. But I guess these factors don't play much of a role if you are married to the director... Secondly, I've always hated all these historical novels or films where "emancipated" women do stuff they just wouldn't have done in the century the plot is set in. And no, I'm pretty sure a woman of the 17th century would not have stripped on the roof of the palace and bungee jumped down. And no, she would not be able to win a sword fight against several Cardinal's Guards. And no group of three 17th century soldiers would have allowed a woman (in a huge gown not made for running) to draw the gunfire onto herself, so that they can go safe after she has activated the trap… There were more anachronisms like that, the most obvious one being the air ships, but I won't even start ranting about them. The second most annoying anachronism was the portrayal of Rochefort: At the beginning, d'Artagnan challenges him to a duel, but Rochefort just shoots him before he can draw his sword. Outrageous for a 17th century nobleman! If there is one important ingredient you mustn't forget in a cloak-and-sword-film, it's the code of honour: you fight your enemy, but you're always noble and fair. The movie almost completely lacked this element. Also, why the heck does a Musketeer movie need a "Mission Impossible" scene with Milady climbing though a network of invisible wires? And why can d'Artagnan, after just one audience, stroll through the palace gardens with the King? Why does Buckingham accuse the King of wearing "retro style"? – Even the soundtrack was anachronistic sometimes, when it suddenly changed from classical Hans-Zimmer-style to Pulp-Fiction-style – very irritating!

But the anachronisms are not the only logical flaws in the movie: How did the French build an air ship in one week? (How do they fly and how are they steered anyway?) Why would a royal ship use a skeleton as a figurehead? (Answer: so that you get the Pirates of the Caribbean style) Why do the musketeers first try to get into the tower vault in order to get the diamonds, but then Athos suddenly knows that the diamonds won't be there anyway, but with Milady? How does Milady survive a fall of like 100 metres?

Well, perhaps you should just switch off the logical part of your brain, when you go to see this movie! All in all, I had great fun watching it together with some friends. In the end it was better than I feared after seeing the trailers, but the sad thing is: it was worse than it could have been! All the ingredients for a great historical movie were there: excellent actors, beautiful locations and one of the best novels ever written as the basis! However, they just messed around too much with that great novel. You just can't improve a perfect story (not even with air ships), you can only make it worse.

A story spoiled by the blind pursuit of visual effects. Do not encourage the makers of this movie by going to see it.

[dmurray-32 · 22 September 2011]

I feel a little sorry to be so critical of this movie, because I thought some of the performances were fine, especially Matthew McFadyen and Ray Stevenson. Alas, Logan Lerman and Milla Jovovich were rather unconvincing in their roles, sucking to varying degrees. While one or two of the 3D scenes worked very well, notably the duel on the top of Notre Dame, the 3D was at its most effective for the credits and some of the other on-screen text. While it did add to the movie, it did not add quite enough to compensate for the other downsides. In the end, the irony is that the movie used 3D technology to depict two dimensional characters.

Perhaps the best parts of the movie were the opening prologue and the early scenes in Paris; thereafter it was all downhill, with the hill getting steeper as the movie progressed. It was apparent that the scriptwriters had either read the book or seen some earlier Musketeer movies, but equally apparent that they had either not understood the story or had decided they knew better than Dumas. Making Buckingham the villain was very ill-judged, and they should have made better use of the Cardinal (and Waltz). Most of this I could have lived with, but what brought the whole edifice crashing down was the nonsensical video-game sequences, featuring ridiculous flying ships that flouted most of the laws of physics (Newtonian and Einsteinian). I think these annoyed me more than the horrendous CGI in the last Indiana Jones movie.

The really frustrating thing is that this could have been an entertaining film; it looked great and had a sound cast. It seemed to me that the director may either have been influenced by childhood over-exposure to the Teletubbies, or that the need to make use of 3D forced the story in a truly stupid direction. I suspect the latter is closer to the truth, and this is what killed 3D last time, i.e. letting the technology drive the script in increasingly bizarre directions.

It would be easier to forgive some of the movie's faults were its crime not so great, i.e. trashing one of the all-time classic adventure stories!

Not that bad

[crossx77-1 · 7/10 · 16 August 2020]

It's wasn't as bad as some say. It starts off the same as the original book but then takes a "wild Wild West" turn and goes all steampunk with flying ships. It's a fun film to watch with some good fighting scenes but if you want a serious version I'd watch the 1993 version.

A silly, far-fetched romp

[I_Ailurophile · 7/10 · 21 June 2021]

It's a preposterous, stylized action-comedy adventure flick with as much in common with 'Hellboy' or 'The league of extraordinary gentlemen' as 'Pirates of the Caribbean.' The dialogue is as ham-handed as most characterizations and action sequences are outlandish. If you're looking for a faithful, period-accurate adaptation of the novel, you've come to the wrong place.

'The Three Musketeers' is mindless entertainment, a popcorn movie perhaps inspired by Dumas, but hardly attentive to his works. Not even the slightest effort is made to affect a French accent; the few clever lines are far outnumbered by the exchanges in the script that are altogether hackneyed. Characters and their motivations, like story beats, mostly bear depth roughly about as great as the puddles formed on uneven concrete from a heavy rainstorm. Plot advancement owes far more to direct, unsubtle screenwriting than to convincing narrative flow.

Have I sold you on this movie yet?

This is about style over substance, emphasized by the editing that utilizes slow-motion and ramping; camerawork that lingers lovingly on director Paul W. S. Anderson's action-star wife Milla Jovovich; and a cast that includes world-class performers like Christoph Waltz and Mads Mikkelsen, yet which is denied an opportunity to truly demonstrate their skill. Highfalutin heist schemes clearly derive their forced sophistication from comedies of recent years revolving around numerical Oceans, while devices shown off during action sequences yield technological advancement far exceeding the setting. The would-be magnificence of some eye-catching shots is counterbalanced by the artificiality of their flair and the over-produced look of the picture generally, while Paul Haslinger's bombastic score echoes the music of any action flick I've mentioned above.

With all this having been said, 'The three musketeers' IS fun, as long as you don't mind mostly senseless self-indulgence. As blunt and unbelievable as the movie is, it's all by intent, geared toward a young summer blockbuster audience. Pierre-Yves Gayraud's costume design is marvelous, and set pieces no less grand. Heavy-handed as the picture may be in its tone and appearance, the production design is entrancing, from a standpoint of pure amusement. While the greatest capabilities of the cast are squandered, it's nonetheless a joy to watch them lean into over the top roles with performances that are just as exaggerated.

No one is going to mistake this for a cinematic classic, and even among action-adventure films, the sheer aggressiveness of its devotion to flash is overbearing. But sometimes it's okay to just turn your brain off to enjoy the merriment of a ridiculous yarn. 'The three musketeers' is a good time - and every now and again, that's all a movie really needs to be.

Recommended for fans of summer blockbusters, and especially for viewers who enjoy fantastical pseudo-period fare like 'Pirates of the Caribbean.'

Really?

[markoffj · 1/10 · 16 October 2011]

I actually expected this movie to be bad based on the previews, and after the first 5 minutes, which were kind of entertaining, I thought "maybe this won't be so bad". But every attempt at humor is completely dry, and the story is told in the worst way possible. Aside from the opening scene, everything added to the story in an attempt to make it different from the standard Three Musketeer plot is completely lame. And even Orlando Bloom acted like a rookie! I don't know how on earth this managed to get financed. If you want some real entertainment, watch the 1993 version, in which Tim Curry is the best evil Cardinal ever!

Entertaining if heavily flawed

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 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

A cinematic mess.....

[geddyleeisgod · 4/10 · 22 October 2011]

It would have been nice if this Mila Jovavich vehicle had anything remotely to do with the original Dumas masterpiece, but alas, it seems too much to ask of Hollywood's dread cash hounds, who, like some sort of anti-Jesus, can magically transform the finest of wine into sh*t.

I hope the angry ghost of Dumas defecates in their mouths as they sleep for foisting this god awful mess upon us. The only reason it merited any stars is because Ms. Jovavich is stunning, and the special effects were pretty. These were barely enough to rescue my PC from death by stomping after watching about half of this outrage.

If you find yourself about to watch - save yourself!

An Enjoyable Slant and Modern Eye on a Classic Tale

[parrys2 · 7/10 · 18 April 2014]

I've just watched The Three Musketeers (2011) and all the way through it I found myself having the biggest, most stupid grin on my face. A star like Milla Jovovich (as Milady de-Winter) sending up her Alice character from Resident Evil, was pure class. I never thought Alexander Dumas' story would transfer over to A Wachowski Brothers style action / adventure, but it did! With Pirates of the Caribbean styled music drifting in and out of the soundtrack, just added to the yarn. If you're a literary aficionado, then stay away from this film, as it will only wind you up. But if you're looking for something fun, enjoyable and a taster to a true literary great, then watch this, you wont be disappointed. By the way, Orlando Blooms' swagger as the Duke of Buckingham, really is something to behold. Enjoy!

Absolute garbage, skip this one at all cost

[gsingh-317-114060 · 1/10 · 15 March 2012]

First off I want to start by saying that i have never posted a review on IMDb before as no movie how bad it is has compelled me to do so. But recently these so called Hollywood blockbusters have left me with no choice. So lets come to this movie now. First off who did the casting for this movie and who wrote the script if you can call it a script. I guess the plan in the boardroom was lets take good actors like Chris Waltz, Mads Mikkelson, Ray Stevenson and even Luke Evans. All these actors except Luke Evans I love dearly. But in this movie all the director and producer did was under-use the best actors in the movie and instead give all the screen time to Mila and Logan. I personally enjoy watching Mila in Resident Evil series but here she was just unnecessary. And this kid Logan, who calls him an actor, i am furious that he got paid to do this role so poorly. I am a business grad so I work better in explaining things in points. So i will just make a list of what I felt was wrong with this movie; here it goes: The three musketeers, um mm I mean the four musketeers I guess -

1) Lets teach all the teenage kids to fight and join some sort of army or gang. Also send them to the big city to pick fights with anyone who insults their horse. There is no honour in doing anything else but killing another human being. I guess being a scholar, inventor and all that is just a waste, be a killer thats where all the glory and Honor is.

2) Lets hire a bunch of exceptional actors and under-use them through the whole movie and just use their faces on the posters to sell the movie.

3) A 20 year old kid who is trained by his father can beat down 20 cardinal guards all by himself while the brave three musketeers watch and laugh in surprise.

4) If you kill the cardinal guards in the streets of France, then the public cheers and rejoices for you and calls you a hero openly.

5) Lets use Da Vinci's name for the sake of scientific inventions and get away with inventing a flying elephant for crying out loud.

6) lets offer no character development in any dimension but still make the movie in 3 dimension for the people to enjoy.

7) Remember if a girl kisses you, then you must go to England, steal the Diamonds, bring them back to France all in 5 days. I suppose water ships used to sail really fast during those times.

8) If you are the villain and you have to stop the hero from bringing the diamonds back to France, then do not shoot the airship down and destroy the evidence but instead offer them a trade for the captive girl.

9) Lets get the heroes who have seen an airship for the first time in their lives fly an airship later on in the movie with no real training what so ever.

10) Lets get Mila to kill 5-6 skilled guards in a sword fight and pull off a heist but yet still accept defeat in front of 4 musketeers because she is such a petite woman with no strength.

11) Lets throw Mila from the airship thousands of miles down to ocean and still have her survive the ordeal because first you cant kill Mila no matter what and second because if you fall from the height of thousand miles into water, it does not hurt as water breaks your fall.

I can continue on with many other rants about the movie but I will stop here. My only request is to Mr. Mikkelson and Christopher Waltz is that I know it takes money to pay the bills but please do read the script before you actually sign a movie. I suggest everyone who reads this review to avoid this movie completely. Trust me you wont miss much

I don't care what people say... I really liked it!

[jsillman100 · 10/10 · 5 April 2012]

OK... I know a lot of people on here really don't like the movie. I understand that there were things that could have been changed about it, but for the most part I really enjoyed watching the movie. I love the steampunk feel to the movie and the slow motion in the fight scenes. I will say that the girl that played Constance could have done better. She was so unemotional and flat. The Three Musketeers and D'Artagnan were great! Great fighting and great humor. I would really like to see a sequel. Lastly, the costumes were AMAZING! The dresses were so bright and colorful. The men looked GREAT! I have seen the Disney Musketeers movie and I hated the costumes from that movie. Im glad this film did such a good on the costumes.

6.5 Stars

[Foutainoflife · 7/10 · 17 January 2020]

This was almost like a steam-punked version of The Three Musketeers. It had some good elements and then there were bad ones.

Lets start with the good. The costuming in this was great. It was full of vibrant color and good costuming always pulls me into a film. There was some cool weaponry and the effects were ok. Overall, the film was well made.

The bad. They should've spent more time building up the characters. We didn't get a really good sense of who anyone was. It was like we were supposed to know who they were based on their names and a few key details.

They went a bit overboard, no pun intended, with the flying warships. For me that was just a step too far especially if you love the classic nature of the story. They also made the king look like a nincompoop. It was a bit strange how he was portrayed.

It wasn't outright awful, in my opinion, but it lacked depth and a true sense of comradery. It was a decent watch for a night on the couch but nothing I am overly impressed with.

Had more in common with the candy bar than the book...

[chorbz · 1/10 · 24 September 2011]

I really thought that Twilight 4 would be the worst movie of the year but after seeing this one I don't think movies can get any worse. This movie proves that God exists only for their is no way that the worst screenplay and the worst acting got together and made this movie by coincidence, there had to be divine help.

Not only does this movie not even remotely follow the book or any other movie it tries to spice up the failure of a movie that it is by having special effects that are so ridiculous they would make you laugh if you weren't in pain from realizing you paid to see this movie.

Overall I would rather pay forty dollars to watch a censored version of Piranha 3D then get paid to see this movie again.