Steineded How sad is this?

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

tiger86-2 I loved the movie when I saw it for the first time. Of course, back then I was 15 and I was easily impressed, but, honestly, 'The Musketeer' still is a rather watchable swashbucking adventure. It is beautifully filmed, nicely paced, funny, and filled with excellent stunts. It suffers, however, from three serious problems.First, apart from a few names, it has nothing to do with Dumas' works whatsoever, and it is about as historically accurate as "Xena: Warrior Princess" is - which would be fine, if the historical period and the books were represented well by Hollywood - but, sadly, they're not. The last Hollywood movie that actually did Dumas' "The Three Musketeers" justice came out in the year 1948 - it is great, by the way, watch it.Second, the writing is about as good as you can expect from a hack like Gene Quintano. The highlight of this moron's career is 'Loaded Weapon 1', which, I believe, says enough about his abilities. He cannot write adventure, and if it weren't for Peter Hyams' serviceable directing, this movie would actually deserve its current rating of 4.7/10. I really do think Hyams did the best he could with the material he had to work with - and with the piece of wood that played the main character - which leads us to the final and most important problem.Third, Justin Chambers is simply awful. He is not only a bad actor, making Robert Patinson look like Daniel Day-Lewis in comparison, he is also a horrible action performer, which is indeed a problem when the character he is supposed to play is the best Kung-Fu master that has ever roamed the streets of Paris during the reign of King Louis XIII. Clearly, the producers' of this movie's goal wasn't an Oscar worthy performance, but why didn't they hire someone capable to do the fight scenes to play the leading role? As I said, the stunts were nice, but the fact that Chambers obviously relied on a stunt double way too much remains. I'm not saying he should've risked his life performing the action scenes, but, dammit, most of the time when D'Artagnan is fighting you don't even see his face - either he is wearing a hat, covering his entire head, or he is filmed from afar, or his face is shown in a close-up while the actor is not doing anything, other than simply waving his sword around, parrying imaginary blows or stabbing imaginary opponents. In other words, during a fight scene you see either the fighting, or D'Artagnan's face, but never both - and once you realize that, a lot of the pleasure you're extracting from this movie will disappear.With all that said, I still recommend the movie, if you want to see something lighthearted and adventurous. True, it is not exactly great, but it is watchable, and it is colourful.

Kirpianuscus I am far to be a fan o Alexandre Dumas. so, this version is far to be a surprise. except the presence of few good actors in not the best roles, some seductive ( but unrealistic ) fight scenes, a story reduced at conventional sketch, Tim Roth looking for the decent way to save his character from not happy script and, sure, Catherine Deneuve in a role who surprise long time after the final credits. a film about nothing. this could be a virtue but , in this case, it remains bizarre. because it is just a walk around characters, a stupid script, fight scenes as fireworks. and this is all.

peter-714-703320 The actor playing D'Artagnan is a weird mix of charisma and banality but this is a thoroughly entertaining movie thanks to the period feel, Tim Roth's dastardly villain, the talent of the supporting cast, the execution of the action scenes, and the wit in the dialogue and certain scenes - alligators in the sewers is a nice, knowing touch. The fact the fight scenes are kung fu with swords is okay. Gene Kelly as an athletic D'Artagnan back in the great days of Hollywood established one template; Richard Lester's two Three Musketeer films with Michael York as D'Artagnan established another, witty, historically accurate template. The Young Guns guys didn't do a bad job and there have been numerous other versions - did I dream a terribly overweight (but still wonderful) Gerard Depardieu as Porthos in one version?So - I've seen many a Three Musketeers film and this does not disgrace itself in their company.But tell me again: how come musketeers - who, er, fire muskets/rifles - are always so great with a sword?

Stanjaudit Some folks may'have not appreciated the version of the the Musketeers as it didn't have Michael York as d'Atagan or Fay Dunaway as M'Lady or other actors of renown. However, the intrigue centered around the palace at Versalles. In this case case though the queen was in love with Bukingham and she had taken one of her pearls from her necklace to give to Buckingham as a sign of her love. Cardinal Ricileu played by Charleton Heston learned of this and tried to have the queen implicated. That was that movie. This movie was just as entertaining. It may not have had the big name stars but the Palace of Versallies was the center of the intrigue. The plot was different but the action was nonstop. d'Atagan proved to be the better swordsman and musketeer. So cut some some slack and enjoy a film for it's own merits not some preconceived ones.