PDA

View Full Version : The Three Musketeers (2011 Film/General Discussion)



Athaniar
2011-10-01, 03:24 PM
One for all, and all for one!

With that out of the way, let's talk about this latest version of the classic tale, which I saw myself just a few hours ago (being a fortunate European). Most professional reviews where I live were not very merciful, but it's what they disliked that I enjoyed: the "actionization" of the story. Honestly, I would probably have been rather bored had it just been another very faithful retelling of the story, which has been done so many times. This film is an enjoyable action-filled adventure that doesn't take itself all that seriously, with barely any boring moment at all, good acting, exciting fights, beautiful scenery, and more. If you like that, you'll probably like this as well.

Of course, feel free to contribute with your own opinions. This is a forum thread, not a review blog.

grimbold
2011-10-02, 12:44 PM
i might go see it
i thought it was a france only movie though...
its cool that this great story is being shared worldwide

H Birchgrove
2011-10-02, 12:55 PM
I remain sceptic; I love me some steampunk/clockworkpunk, but in Alexander Dumas' stories? :smallconfused:

Is Cardinal Richelieu a villain to be respected? That is a pretty important selling point for me.

Some day I have to read all the novels (unabridged) and see the French adaptations... The first Richard Lester film was pretty good (didn't get to see the sequel), and the Disney version with Charlton Heston as Cardinal Richelieu and The Man in the Iron Mask with Leonardo DiCaprio etc were better than I expected.

Athaniar
2011-10-02, 03:02 PM
I remain sceptic; I love me some steampunk/clockworkpunk, but in Alexander Dumas' stories?
It's not much beyond the airship* and some gadgets. Certainly not a pure steampunk story.

*Well, airships.


Is Cardinal Richelieu a villain to be respected? That is a pretty important selling point for me.
I found him pretty impressive, at least, but then again, he is played by Christoph Waltz (who won an Oscar for his role as Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds). He isn't respected much in-story by the other characters, though, but he is far from being a comic relief villain.

As for the other main villains (Milady, Rochefort, Buckingham), I found them to be good as well.

Mr.Silver
2011-10-02, 03:06 PM
I'm probably not going to see this, since a large number of things about it are setting-off the 'pointless cash-grab' alarm. For instance, there have been quite a few adaptations of The Three Musketeers in the past (of varying quality and faithfulness - the nadir of which being the 1993 Disney film) so it needs to be asked what exactly this film is going to say that hasn't been said already? Replacing characterisation with action scenes and slapping on some steampunk trappings doesn't really count, and neither does turning Lady DeWinter into a ninja-esque action girl, it would seem the answer is 'not much'.
Overall, I can't see anything about it that makes it stand-out from the deluge of remakes/sequels/re-imaginings (in 3D!!!!!) Hollywood's being bombarding us with for the past few years.


It's not much beyond the airship and some gadgets. Certainly not a pure steampunk story.

See, if anything that makes it worse. It's basically admitting it's only put in for some added flashy spectacle rather than to contribute anything to the setting.
(also, not really a spoiler on the airships given that the Trailers in the UK make it clear there's more than one).

Athaniar
2011-10-02, 03:20 PM
Like I said, this is not a film for those who want historical realism and drama. This is a fun action adventure based on a classic story. I like that, so I wasn't disappointed. But still, "replacing characterisation with action scenes" is a bit unfair. It's not a mindless effects-feast like so many other modern films.

Also, even though trailers might spoil (and they often do, see TVTropes for more of that), I tend to avoid doing so.

Traab
2011-10-02, 03:24 PM
Hey, I LIKED The disney version of three musketeers! :smallbiggrin: Tim Curry is an awesome bad guy.

Greenish
2011-10-02, 04:01 PM
Is Cardinal Richelieu a villain to be respected? That is a pretty important selling point for me.In the books, he wasn't quite a villain, even. Antagonist, certainly, but not a villain (but then again, I've only read a translation, and that was a while back). Dumas certainly didn't consider him a historical villain, that much is apparent from The Red Sphinx* (the English translation probably had some other name, since googling didn't turn up much).

: *It's "The Count of Moret; or, Richelieu and his rivals" in English.


the Disney version with Charlton Heston as Cardinal RichelieuDo you mean the 1973 version which also had Cristopher Lee as Rochefort and Raquel Welch as D'Artagnan's mistress? I didn't know it's by Disney, but it's certainly the best movie adaption of the story that I've seen.

H Birchgrove
2011-10-02, 04:04 PM
It's not much beyond the airship* and some gadgets. Certainly not a pure steampunk story.

*Well, airships.


I found him pretty impressive, at least, but then again, he is played by Christoph Waltz (who won an Oscar for his role as Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds). He isn't respected much in-story by the other characters, though, but he is far from being a comic relief villain.

As for the other main villains (Milady, Rochefort, Buckingham), I found them to be good as well.

OK I might go see it for Waltz then.

Might.


In the books, he wasn't quite a villain, even. Antagonist, certainly, but not a villain (but then again, I've only read a translation, and that was a while back). Dumas certainly didn't consider him a historical villain, that much is apparent from The Red Sphinx* (the English translation probably had some other name, since googling didn't turn up much).

: *It's "The Count of Moret; or, Richelieu and his rivals" in English.

Yeah, I'm aware of the Flanderization of poor Richie in the films. It should also be noted that he's quite respected in France (the real deal, not the semi-fictitious character). They named battle ships and aircraft carriers after him, dammit!


Do you mean the 1973 version which also had Cristopher Lee as Rochefort and Raquel Welch as D'Artagnan's mistress? I didn't know it's by Disney, but it's certainly the best movie adaption of the story that I've seen.

I might have confused those two films (the Disney one being from the 1990's); it was years since I saw either of them. I've checked Wikipedia and yes, Heston was in the 1973 film directed by Lester.

Athaniar
2011-10-02, 04:15 PM
I'd really like to see that '73 version, Lee is my favorite actor, but it's very hard to find around here. Ah well.

Partysan
2011-10-02, 04:19 PM
Hehe, I saw that one. Of course it's utter bull and doesn't make any sense at all, but it was very fun to watch, so I guess I liked it, even though I'd be tempted to call it a guilty pleasure. After all, whet else than being amused would I expect from a cinema evening, and I was amused indeed.

Greenish
2011-10-02, 04:27 PM
Yeah, I'm aware of the Flanderization of poor Richie.It's common in the derivative works, but it's not really present in the books.


I might have confused those two films (the Disney one being from the 1990's); it was years since I saw either of them.You probably have, since Heston's filmography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston_filmography) doesn't mention the Disney flick.


I'd really like to see that '73 version, Lee is my favorite actor, but it's very hard to find around here. Ah well.Oh, it's an excellent piece, and the sequel (Four Musketeers, 1974) is very good, for a sequel.

If the landlubber methods prove inadequate, well, there are other options. :smallwink:


But, do tell us more of this new adaption. Airships are (almost) always a good thing, after all.

H Birchgrove
2011-10-02, 04:48 PM
This brings back memories. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_the_Fifth_Musketeer) :smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2011-10-02, 05:02 PM
I just watched the trailer, and I'm not terribly impressed.

"Only we can prevent the coming apocalypse!" Right, it looks like they've just taken the superficial details of the original and dropped them into the "default story".

And I'm not overly fond of fight scenes that look like they're been choreographed by a modern dance choreographer.

Traab
2011-10-02, 05:04 PM
This brings back memories. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_the_Fifth_Musketeer) :smallbiggrin:


M'Lady- Richelieu's cunning female assistant. She has a tattoo of a fleur de lis on her shoulder that turns into a quacking duck.



/blink /blink

Athaniar
2011-10-02, 05:09 PM
But, do tell us more of this new adaption. Airships are (almost) always a good thing, after all.
Oh, the airships are very good indeed. They look awesome, and come equipped with plenty of destructive gadgets.


I just watched the trailer, and I'm not terribly impressed.

"Only we can prevent the coming apocalypse!" Right, it looks like they've just taken the superficial details of the original and dropped them into the "default story".
Reading the summary of the original story at Wikipedia (haven't read the book itself), I see it's not actually that different from the film. Anyway, here is a brief (and probably incomplete) list of differences:

Milady's role is different (being a former partner of the Musketeers who betrays them in the opening), which is maybe the most major change. Milla Jovovich does a good job in the film, though.
The letter of recommendation thing is not present (although the horse and duel part is there).
Planchet is the Three Musketeers' servant, not D'Artagnan's.
The Queen is not actually having an affair, that's part of Richelieu's plot. I can see why this would upset some, but I don't think it matters much. Also, the film ends after they deliver the jewels to her. The Musketeers are active and awaiting the inevitable sequel.

Also, airships.

Greenish
2011-10-02, 05:17 PM
This brings back memories. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_the_Fifth_Musketeer) :smallbiggrin:It certainly does. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogtanian_and_the_Three_Muskehounds)

Corvus
2011-10-02, 05:38 PM
I remember reading The Three Musketeers when quite young - the full, unabridged version that is. Loved it.

Just wish that for once they would get Richelieu's character right in the movies.

Traab
2011-10-02, 06:31 PM
What is the right way for the good cardinal to act?

Greenish
2011-10-02, 07:04 PM
What is the right way for the good cardinal to act?He's not a bad guy. An antagonist of the musketeers, yes, but not a villain. He genuinely serves France the best he can, and wants what's best for the country. He's pragmatic (as opposed to the musketeers' romanticism) and, if necessary, ruthless, but he respects his opponents (and they him).

Or well, just read the books. You won't regret it. :smalltongue:


[Edit]: And of course, he's not trying to claim the power. He pretty much already has it.

Athaniar
2011-10-02, 07:15 PM
Which film adaption of the story comes closest to portraying him like in the original?

H Birchgrove
2011-10-02, 07:41 PM
Which film adaption of the story comes closest to portraying him like in the original?

My mother claims this version is the closest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Musketeers_%281961_film%29), and she prefers it over the Richard Lester film (though she appreciate it as well).

Oh, you meant Richie, not the whole book. I'm not sure then.

Icewalker
2011-10-02, 08:21 PM
He's not a bad guy. An antagonist of the musketeers, yes, but not a villain. He genuinely serves France the best he can, and wants what's best for the country. He's pragmatic (as opposed to the musketeers' romanticism) and, if necessary, ruthless, but he respects his opponents (and they him).

Or well, just read the books. You won't regret it. :smalltongue:


[Edit]: And of course, he's not trying to claim the power. He pretty much already has it.

Wellll. I'm not sure I'd say he isn't a villain. I'd peg him as a villain myself, having read the book (although not the full Romances) quite recently. But he definitely isn't your cliche villain, not outright evil, not without standards. I think you do catch it pretty well: pragmatic and ruthless, and definitely highly respectful of his opponents, and not power hungry, but in the way that he is portrayed I would probably consider him a villain. Although, it sounds like we may just be thinking of the term differently. He is definitely more antagonist than villain, I can say that, and there's another who's rather more a villain as far as the story goes...

Avilan the Grey
2011-10-03, 01:54 AM
This starts all the wrong bells to ring, so... no.

I must say I REALLY liked the Disney one from a few years back. This... No thank you.

H Birchgrove
2011-10-03, 06:00 AM
/blink /blink

I know the significance of the fleur de lis in the novels; was this an example of "getting crap past the radar"? :smallconfused:

Greenish
2011-10-03, 10:23 AM
I know the significance of the fleur de lis in the novels; was this an example of "getting crap past the radar"? :smallconfused:I think the confusion was caused by said brand turning into a duck and quacking.

Scarlet Knight
2011-10-03, 10:30 AM
The book is great and for adults: What would you do if you were the Cardinal and believed the Queen was a traitor? What if you were a Musketeer? Is your loyaly to the Queen? Or the King ?

It's a must read for all swashbuckling fans, especially if you think you know the story.

The 1993 Disney version was not truly faithful to the novel but this allowed the movie to be a great family film. Lot of fun to watch with my children.

The casting with Tim Curry, Charlie Sheen, Oliver Platt, and Rebecca DeMorney was great! Now I have to go blow the dust off the DVD...

grimbold
2011-10-03, 11:40 AM
personally i found the french adaptations a bit heavy and old fashioned but overall very good

H Birchgrove
2011-10-03, 04:19 PM
I think the confusion was caused by said brand turning into a duck and quacking.

Yeah, but why is it turning into a duck? It's a joke I don't get. Was it there because quacking ducks are just that funny? Or is there some innuendo about ducks I don't know?

I feel stupid.

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-10-03, 07:37 PM
Yeah, but why is it turning into a duck? It's a joke I don't get. Was it there because quacking ducks are just that funny? Or is there some innuendo about ducks I don't know?

I feel stupid.
*considers making an Exalted joke*

It's funny because it's such an utter absurdity. Like duck-punching.

Traab
2011-10-03, 09:01 PM
I think the confusion was caused by said brand turning into a duck and quacking.

This. Perhaps it is some cultural joke that I, as a stinking american, wouldnt understand, but thats just a wee bit random to me. I mean, iirc, the description of the characters was basically they exaggerated the official characteristics the novelized characters had, so a death mark tattoo, or whatever the hell it was, that turns into a duck doesnt seem to fit. If anything, I would have expected a mike tyson style facial tattoo in whatever shape they wanted for her exaggeration.

Avilan the Grey
2011-10-04, 01:23 AM
The casting with Tim Curry, Charlie Sheen, Oliver Platt, and Rebecca DeMorney was great! Now I have to go blow the dust off the DVD...

I feel the same; it has been too long since I watched that.

Mr.Silver
2011-10-04, 02:04 AM
This. Perhaps it is some cultural joke that I, as a stinking american, wouldnt understand, but thats just a wee bit random
So is the cartoon. Stop over-analysing it.

Traab
2011-10-04, 07:43 AM
So is the cartoon. Stop over-analysing it.

Its not over analyzing, I just wondered if there was some sort of joke there that I missed. I got the humor behind how the other characters were described, then blammo, random tattoo that turns into a quacking duck. Apparently there isnt, and it was just something silly they added in for the hell of it. Ok, mystery solved.

H Birchgrove
2011-10-04, 05:51 PM
Thanks to all who have solved the mystery of the quacking duck tattoo and thus saved what little remains of my sanity. :smallsmile:

AtlanteanTroll
2011-10-10, 05:44 PM
Wait, when people are talking about the three musketeers, they aren't talking about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey,_Donald,_Goofy:_The_Three_Musketeers)?

Scarlet Knight
2011-10-11, 02:48 PM
The Disney version I speak of is from 1993 live action movie with some famous actors including Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland..

I just finished rewatching the 1993 Disney version- so good! Oliver Platt steals the show.