Visitors Review

ws-dm (2012-05-26 17:48)

Man Needs More Than Fig Leaves

What I noticed most in this movie was men.There were all kinds of men. There were two notably young men. Onewanted to be a Musketeer, one was nobility. Ecclesiastes 10: 16-17 cameto mind for the young king, Louis XIII. (Freddie Fox) "Woe to thee, Oland, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning!Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thyprinces eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!" Theyoung king was a child.D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) was a youth. Luke 2:40-52 came to mind. WhenJesus was twelve, he and his parents went up to Jerusalem for the feastof the Passover. When Jesus' parents left Jerusalem after the feast,they assumed Jesus was in the group. They went a day's journey andrealized he was not among the group. They sought for him among thosewith them, and when they found him not, they turned back to Jerusalemseeking him.After three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst ofdoctors, both hearing them, and asking questions. All that heard himwere astonished at his understanding and answers. Jesus' mother said tohim, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and Ihave sought thee sorrowing." Jesus said unto them, "How is it that yesought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"Jesus was young, and he had awareness of his place in life, but what hedid contrasts young D'Artagnan. It goes on to say that Jesus' parentsunderstood not the saying Jesus spoke unto them. It then says, "And he(Jesus) went down to Nazareth, and was subject unto them..." We hear ofJesus coming into his public ministry at about the age of thirty. Laterin Hebrews 5:5-9, it says, "Though he were a Son, yet he learnedobedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, hebecame the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him..."Jesus learned to be in subjection. He learned to be in obedience evenwhen suffering to do so. To become a man, involves learning to be insubjection and under obedience. There was a period of years where Jesusincreased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. (Luke2:40,52.) Even Jesus had to wait and not come into certain positionsuntil due time.I saw a clergyman wearing robes of religion, yet, underneath werehidden aspirations and agendas. I saw "The Eminence" wantingpreeminence: holding out his hand for people to kiss his ring.Jesus said, "Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes,and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats, in thesynagogues, and the chief rooms at the feasts; which devour widows'houses, and for a show make long prayers: he same shall receive greaterdamnation." (Luke 20:46-47) Jesus also said, " Beware of falseprophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they areravening wolves." (Matthew 7:15) Revelation 13:11 says, "And I beheldanother beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like alamb, and he spake as a dragon." In other words, he looked like a lamb,but he was no lamb - looks can be deceiving - he spoke like a dragon;he was a dragon.Other men in the movie I took note of - one seemed to be the one menlaugh at and not laugh with. He appeared emasculated. Others were menin the king's court, or the lord's court - "Humpty, dumpty, sat onwall; humpty, dumpty, had a great fall; And all the king's horses, andall the king's men, could not put humpty, dumpty back together again."I thought of the preacher in Ecclesiates when he spoke of the sons ofmen: Vanity of vanities...all is vanity. There was a street scene andpeople were passing through. There were men sitting on the sidewalkwith their backs against a wall; they sat with what appeared to be ajug. They sat and probably took a swig as other men raced on by doingsomething; but, what? After all is said and done, vanity is vanity, nomatter what form it takes on.I noticed many men in this movie wearing many different types ofclothes; yet, they were still naked.Man needs more than fig leaves.

khfan250 (2012-05-26 06:05)

What you see is what you get...

If you saw the trailer to this movie and thought to yourself, "Gee,that looks good or, at least, entertaining." then you'll probably likethis movie. But, if you watched the trailer and said, "Wow, that looksincredibly stupid." then you will hate this movie. I wanted to beentertained, so I paid $7.50 to be entertained. Was I? Yes. Does thatmake it a good film? ...Not really. The story and script completely forgets that it's based on the classicAlexandre Dumas tale and seems more like a rip-off of the laststeampunk-influenced movie, Sherlock Holmes. The plot is all over theplace and lost my attention within the first ten minutes.The acting is more of a hit and miss. Matthew Macfadyen, Ray Stevenson,and Luke Evans as the titular characters do well in their respectiveroles. Each brought their own respective characters to life. LoganLerman, being one of the worst child actors the world has ever known,is disastrous. His only job in this movie is to complain, smirk at thecamera, and make feeble attempts to make the audience laugh. The three villains, on the other hand, were hilarious!...in a bad way.I like Orlando Bloom, but honestly, what was he doing in this movie? Itseemed like he was trying too hard to be slimy and nefarious, and justcame out to be over-the-top and goofy. Milla Jovovich's only job is tobe sexy to such an irritating point where you stop caring. And, is itjust me, or does Christoph Waltz sound like Tommy Wiseau in this movie?The other supporting characters do well, particularly James Corden asPlanchet, who steals every scene he's in. The sword fights are well choreographed. I haven't seen such impressiveswordsmanship in a film since The Lord of the Rings. But on the otherhand, the cinematography and CGI is absolutely LAZY. I mean, it's bad.REALLY bad. It's half-hearted, cheap, but, then again, what did youexpect from Paul W.S. Anderson, the genius behind the Mortal Kombatmovie?! Final verdict: If you are a fan of the Alexander Dumas story or you'relooking for a spectacular movie, you'll want to avoid this movie.However, if you can ignore its flaws and enjoy it as a popcorn flick,you'll like it enough at a matinée price. I found it to be fun, despiteits several flaws.

PlanecrazyIkarus (2012-05-24 19:33)

Dazzling the eyes while grating away at your ears and slowly eating your soul

The Three Musketeers must be one of the most filmed stories of alltime. It seems like major movie adaptations now happen every 5 years,and major TV adaptations at a similar pace.So, the last big movie adaptation was all about wire-fu. Why has itbeen filmed again? The advent of 3D. Apparently, every new fad inHollywood must immediately be followed by a 3 musketeers film"reimagining" the old story by applying the new fad. There is also ahint of steampunk about this - but the historical setting far predatesthe steam age, so instead we get a bit of nonsense about Leonardo DaVinci and airships. (Leonardo, by the way, drew schemata for heavierthan air flying craft, and tanks. Not, as far as I recall, lighter thanair craft)So, how does this movie fare? The plot is roughly the same as in thelast few adaptations I've seen (I never read the book: I read Count ofMonte Christo, found it a bit too heavy on the religiousness, anddidn't muster the energy to read 3 Musketeers). Except, this timearound, Buckingham is a villain. (Orlando Bloom, being as uncharismaticas ever)The action is competent enough - lots of CG, Milla Jovovich gets toleap around in period dress instead of combat gear or scifi rubber, andthe traps in this film are about as close to scifi Resident Evil /heist movie type traps as they could get away with. The fencing,meanwhile, plays second or third fiddle to the big CG action setpieces,so don't expect anything too old fashioned.But the dialogue... well, it's stolen. My ears kept detecting lineafter line and after a while, I started realising that this film hadthe gall to pretty much steal half its dialogue from previous musketeerfilms and other sources. At some point, a character uses an Oscar Wildeline. I would not be surprised if it turned out that the script doesnot contain a single line of original writing. Even the jokes fromprevious movies are stolen (D'Artagnan's insistence that a characterapologises to his horse, for example). When not grating your ears withstolen dialogue, the film allows far too much screen time to a thirdrate British comedian / sidekick (James Corden?) who is probably themost annoying thing in the entire film. The other actors, meanwhile, manage to strut around on screen whilefailing to produce even the slightest hint at on-screen chemistry,instead delivering line after line in their blandest ever performances.Even Christoph Waltz doesn't try to steal the show, which says a lot.(Will he ever be cast as a non-psychopathic character? He wascharismatic in Inglorious Basterds, but now, he's been flogging thathorse for a while...). Meanwhile, this particular incarnation ofConstanze is even more underwhelming than Mena Suvari's effort in thelast Musketeer film I've seen - and that says a lot.So, plagiarised dialogue, bland performances, visually pretty CG actionthat is mindbogglingly silly... On the whole, that all sounds ratherbad. And (in a Top Gear-esque revelation), it is. It's also reasonablywatchable if you can totally switch off your brain and focus all yourattention on Athos, who is the only actor/character projecting even theslightest hint of charisma in this entire soulless endeavour. PaulAnderson should probably stick to futuristic stuff and zombie movies -for Resident Evil, the slick visuals can, in combination with athumping soundtrack, be enough to make fairly soulless films enjoyable.(And, to be fair, zombie scifi video game adaptations are a genre wherea certain degree of cold, by-the-numbers film making is perfectlyacceptable and expected). But the Three Musketeers? No, that story hasbeen done with so much more gusto and passion in the past, any newadaptation should really dazzle more than just the eyes...PS: Milady? Seriously? Sounds more like a name for a dog than a namefor a character. Then again, this film credits some character names as"Blonde" and "Cougar", so I suppose naming the female lead "Milady" isnot out of line with that sort of approach to the female gender...

fayazissak (2012-05-24 07:21)

Utter trash

I found this movie to be complete and utter trash, the CGI was obvious,especially in fight scenes, the story was ludicrous, the movie itselfwas long and dull. Why does Hollywood think that they can continuallyre- invent this particular story is beyond me. Its a shame because it looked half decent from the trailer, and hassome great actors in the movie too. The Three Musketeers is a movie that you will easily forget, it willleave no long standing impression in your mind. I would love to see aversion that has a decent script and stuck more closely to the originaltext.If you are looking to pass a couple of hours and don't care what youwatch, go for it, otherwise I would advise you to spend your time morewisely!

walter2-1 (2012-05-23 21:25)

Another worthwhile-content-free remake

Yes, there are people in this movie that are identified as musketeers,and we get 3 of them by name. However, that is as close to Dumas' TheThree Musketeers as this movie ever comes. This movie has been mademany times which is a testament to the exceptionally good story andengaging characters. Sadly, these elements are completely missing fromthis version. The 1993 film is SO much better it's outrightembarrassing, and not just because every actor is so good in it. It wasbrilliantly told, well cast and wonderfully acted. No danger whatsoeverof that in this version.This version has only the high fantasy church-top aerial fencing sceneto commend it, otherwise, every single critical story line element ismissing. We have zero character development, some fantasyballoon-frigate warfare (maybe they thought Jules Verne wrote theoriginal), and a confused story line that simply makes no sense. 3D?Totally useless, and as expected, did not make up for the otherfailings. I now regard 3D as a stark warning: "we failed utterly withthe writing, so we decided to mindlessly pimp the visuals, watch out"It's depressing enough that Hollywood keeps plundering old movies andstories for "new" releases, but then the witless committee of bad tastegets into the action, and determined to appeal to some non-existentdemographic, destroys and defaces the final result. I'm sure if theycould have somehow gotten a topless car chase into the film, they wouldhave.Why even a five? good question, but to be fair, I did enjoy some of thevisuals, and the costumes were great, I just hated the movie as astory, and never, ever want to see it again.

grannymandy (2012-05-23 09:25)

To much of Mrs Anderson

Forget Alexander Dumas's original story as this is another movie tofeature Milla Jovovich.This could have been a great swash bucklingadventure the Three musketeers & D'Artagnan were great casting but notgiven a chance to perform as the Director was to busy featuring hiswife. The movie should have been called the Lady De Winter. If there isto be a second feature the musketeers must be given time to developtheir characters and perform.People can enjoy the fantasy of it all butdon't cut out the main characters.The costumes and settings wereexcellent with the 3D effect.I am sure many a young person who has notread or seen previous movies will appreciate the fun.

Vijayanand Phad (2012-05-22 23:04)

The three Musketeers Good epic movie, after a long time.

I know you will get plot from anywhere ! Here are three things aboutmovie,Why to Watch: 1. I have heard a lot about the three musketeers, so Ihad a lot curiosity about the plot (+ a good cast) 2. Plot, based uponhistory. 3D is really effective (+ point for the movie). One of thereally good 3D movies. 3. Good Direction, Screen-play.Why not to watch: This is actually not what I wanted to say, movie issurely watchable, but some flaws are there. The movie is not entirelyup to the expectation(rather my expectation). I thought the movie isabout three(Bestest) friends,It will be all about their F'ship, but itsnot shown that much, the movie is actually about the fourth person.Action is good but was expecting even better, considering the level ofthe plot.My verdict is watch the movie. 3D effects, Plot, and no extrapakugiri(boring things)Overall 8/10

Teh_Doc (2012-05-22 11:02)

Save Your Money

With Paul W.S. Anderson at the helm, I had moderate expectations thatwe would be presented with a fresh version of this classic tale.Unfortunately, that is not the case.Anybody who saw the 1993 version is well aware that Oliver Platt andTim Curry absolutely stole the show; witty sarcasm & dryevil...perfectly delivered.In this version, the script remains either unchanged or changed for theworse. Even more surprising...the acting is just plain bad.Rochefort, played by Mads Mikklesen, is terribly underwritten for a guythat plays such a wonderful bad guy.Christof Waltz is also held back by the lackluster script...and we allknow how chilling he can be (Basterds).Matthew Macfayden...wow, he seems absolutely bored to death in thisrole and you can tell that he can't wait to take off his costume.In short, this version provides absolutely nothing new and what isdelivered, is done so with minimal effort.You'll leave the theater saying "Meh".

debanjanmk (2012-05-21 16:15)

3 cheers for musketeers,

I saw The Three Musketeers and enjoyed every bit of it.The actorsParthos ( Ray Stevenson), Athos (Mathew MacFadyen) and Aramis ( LukeEvans)D'Artagnan ( Logan Lerman)were very good in their respectiveroles.Orlando,Mila were equally good. The special effects really keepyou on the edge of your seat. Case in point: The fireball sequences andthe theft of the necklace under UV rays.The movie had good specialeffects accompanied with terrific action sequences,Paul W.s.Andersonthe Dir. has done a fair job.Fight sequences are the highlight of thismovie.Excellent choreography and effective use of bullet time makesthese fight sequences exceptional.An old story told with modernfinesse.

animesh303 (2012-05-21 06:52)

Entertaining adaptation of classic novel but not a blockbuster

Nice adaptation of novel by Alexandre Dumas. Athos, Porthos, and Aramiswere different in character from what I had imagined after reading thenovel, but similar was the fate of Sherlock Holmes. They had a goodsense of humor. Sherlock Holmes succeeded well with re-invention of thecharacter with good acting by Robert Downey Jr. Though the plot wastaken from the novel, yet there were many instances where it indulgedin fantasy like sky ships, chambers of Leonardo da Vinci and even usagefew words like 'insurance policy' which didn't exist in those days.Being a French story, the language and ascent didn't help in bringingthe originality. However, the lack of certain aspects were well coveredby some twists and superb acting by Milla Jovovich (Milady), OrlandoBloom (Duke of Buckingham) and Matthew Macfadyen (Athos). The 3Deffects were good and the script made a good sinker for its sequel. Myrating: 7

a-sowrd (2012-05-19 15:56)

nice and fun

the three musketeers world looks like sherlock Holmes movie world ,there is fantasy and action .3d in these movie is perfect and better than a lot of 3d movies .there is some nice comedy , the story too is good , there is no onehero rule here but all of musketeers are hero's.10/10 for Milla Jovovich , I really likes here . maybe some did notlike movie because it looks fancy , but it relay worth to go and seeit. the three musketeers may be not the best movie in 2011 , it shouldbe from the top 10 . Especially in this time ( sep & oct ) there is fewgood movies..

TangoX (2012-05-19 07:06)

Do yourself a favour... Place back in box and leave well alone!

Don't even bother watching this, it will make your brain ache, theworst film I have ever seen of The Three Musketeers...I do not know where to start, having watched the 1973 version, which inmy mind was far better, and I would recommend to everyone to go and buyit, that will entertain you, keeping as close to the original book asany film can. However this pile of trash is not even worth wasting money on, FLYINGSHIP'S!and to think they even hinted at making a sequel at the end of thefilm, please please do not, its going to be as bad as Steve Martin'sPink Panther.So why have I missed out the 1993 version, well for me, we had thefinest actors in the 1973 film and I feel that was closet to the bookout of all the films, also the actor line up cannot be beaten at all.So rather then going out to rent this or even buy it, just buy the 1973film called The Three Musketeers. You will have more laughs and nosilly flying ships, that belong in Monty Python.

Mirko Serra (2012-05-18 19:50)

One of the worst movies i ever saw

I was on a plane and they put this "film". After 5-10 minutes, I couldonly take the earplugs out and just watch this awful thing for laughsonly.It's a brainless movie, using characters from a great book. It takeseverything you may hate from action movies (because they're soexaggerated) and puts it on a film that has nothing to do with it.If you like brainless action, don't care about the plot, and you lovewhen they put out-of-time things (technologies and attitudes out of atime), when they misrepresent an entire society and epoch, when theyput woman in the middle of the action (just because that sells), whenthey put advanced technology in ancient times just because that "lookscool", they look back and suddenly worship someone from ancient timesbecause he was advanced, and they say "hey, f*ck logic" and put flyingboats and things, this movie is for you.

navillusds (2012-05-18 02:55)

What a disappointment!

This movie was such a disappointment! I was looking forward to a newMusketeers movie, but this was one of the worst movies I have everseen. Although very loosely based on the Dumas book, the "plot" andcharacters were woefully under-developed. The Musketeers were nevertruly established as the King's elite group of protectors, nor was thereason they no longer functioned. When D'Artagnan realized the identityof the three men he was planning to duel on his first day in Paris, hesaid, "You're the three Musketeers." The airships were ridiculous, especially when one was presented as apirate ship. (Flashback to the mechanical spiders in the awful 1999Wild, Wild West remake.) The idea of Milady DeWinter accompanying theMusketeers on a dangerous mission, and actually leading them when theyhesitated to enter an underground tunnel as well as using ninja-likeskills was simply ludicrous. When the inevitable set-up for a sequelbegan, I could only shake my head in disbelief.The one thing I did like were the costumes--the red and black uniformsworn by the Cardinal's Guard were visually stunning. However,exceptional costume design does not change the fact that this movie isa dud from start to finish. I would use the term "epic fail," but theword "epic" should not be associated with this movie in any way, shapeor form.

admiralrose (2012-05-17 23:16)

Michael Moorcock meets Alexander Dumas!

enjoyable, watchable nonsense! OK - so the dialogue is a little clunky,character depth puddle deep, acting a bit camp and strained and a plotline that does roller-coaster around in a somewhat haphazard fashion -but for me the major upside wasn't watching another remake of the threemusketeers (1993 version is far better - Tim Curry outstanding), ratherseeing the makings of a film production based on an entirely differentstory altogether! Clearly massively influenced by the Hawkmoon ChampionEternal books from Mr Moorcock....masks, flamethrowers, hand heldcrossbows, airships and England as the big bad empire....with the Dukeof Buckingham in the role of Baron Meliadius... in the absence of agenuine Moorcock film (which is a complete oversight - come onHollywood!)...this is a great vehicle for imagining what might be ifthe 'real' Moorcock world was bought to life in film!

Maggie Sarabi (2012-05-17 02:05)

Entertainment only

Okay, first of all: this is not a faithful adaption of the book. Somemight say Alexandre Dumas was rotating in his grave, but I don't thinkso - after all, he wrote it for entertainment, and I think he wouldhave liked the ironic and a little respect-less approach.Secondly: Who would give their villain debut in a film together withMads Mikkelsen and Christoph Waltz, both playing villains, too? Theanswer is, of course, Orlando Bloom. And actually, he does better thanI would have expected. His character is not as calculating as Richelieuor as ruthless as Rochefort, but still, definitely a villain.It's entertainment. Nothing more, but definitely nothing less.

Megan (2012-05-16 15:03)

This movie was pretty awesome :)

I will admit, it was a bit cheesy and clichéd, but I was prettyentertained. It wasn't always historically accurate, but come on, it'sjust a movie. From my limited knowledge about the book, it's not thathistorically accurate, either. I've read about Queen Anne and KingLouis and from my knowledge, they were nothing like they were portrayedin the movie or in the book. I actually like the way the movie wasdone, because I never really liked the characters the way they wereportrayed in other movies. And I will admit that I've never actuallyfinished the book. I find it hard to follow Alexandre Dumas-I tried toread The Count of Monte Cristo as well, and never finished it, but Ithoroughly enjoyed the movie, as different as it was from the book.Normally, though, I prefer books to movies, but this is a rare case.But anyhoo, the movie was pretty funny, and there was plenty ofentertaining sword fighting, too :) It was the best version of theThree Musketeers I've ever seen-and I've seen about three differentversions. There was one from the 40s or 50s in black and white that Ienjoyed, but this was much better :)

ellenlively (2012-05-15 20:47)

Amusing, but slightly pointless...

The Three Musketeers is a film I have long awaited. Seriously. I'vebeen following this. Two words: Orlando. Bloom. I was excited to seeit, but did not expect a lot from this movie, so I was notdisappointed. This movie had dark and fuzzy 3D, a confusing andpointless plot, and weird twists. Props to the new kid though. I forgethis name, but I actually liked him. I assumed he would be annoying andruin the movie, but he carried his part well. Also, there were somehilarious parts. This was a fun, crazy, and weird movie… You can tellthey had fun making it. It is entertaining, but be prepared to walkaway confused and baffled. Don't expect too much.

gavi-biz (2012-05-15 03:24)

Great images and costumes, fun and very enjoyable

If you wish to enjoy a beautiful and funny action movie, this is agreat one. Many beautiful actors, fantastic 3D images, lots of fantasy,and uplifting locations. The special effects are very, very well done.I can get easily offended by most movies, nowadays, but this wasperfectly "clean". So it was a lot of relaxing fun and a beauty for theeyes. Actors play with an original type of humor and the action scenesare intentionally "over the top" to be fun as well and intense andbeautiful. It is a "feel good" movie, to be enjoyed alone, or withgirlfriend/boyfriend or together with friends. The 3D images are superwell done.

Guy (2012-05-14 16:33)

THE THREE MUSKETEERS sees honour, chivalry, romance and adventure meet the MTV generation...and lose

Plot: Four swordsmen must stop the intrigues of a villainous Cardinalto prevent war between England and France.This is less an adaptation than the desecration of a very fine book.The characters are thoroughly bowdlerised: the Musketeers are now acynical special forces team, disbanded after their last mission wentsour; Milady is an implausible ninja; Buckingham literally a moustachetwirling villain; Planchet a repulsive oaf; D'Artagnan an obnoxious,cocky American teenager. Nearly everyone is miscast. The values thatsustain the book - faith, honour and chivalry - are omitted orattacked. The whole thing look like a cartoon, there are gaping plotholes (the attack on the Tower of London), bad green-screen,over-choreographed fights that confuse quantity for quality, andendless pointless shots of maps and cities. Only Orlando Bloom'sludicrously foppish portrayal of the Duke of Buckingham entertains, forall its one-dimensional depth.Worth no viewings (see the 1973 version instead).