Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

mark.waltz While this follows the basic storyline we've seen in more than half a dozen films, this musical comedy is part operetta/part farce, some of it more amusing than the other. With their tongues firmly in their cheeks, the Ritz Brothers are substituted for musketeers which Don Ameche (as D'Artagnon) has made the mistake of insulting in print. They are passed out when Ameche arrives, believing that the disguised Ritz Brothers are actually the men he was arranging to meet. This leads to adventures as they struggle to return a broach belonging to Queen Anne (Gloria Stuart) to her before the King discovers it is missing. The villain is of course the scheming Cardinal Richilieu (Miles Mander looking nothing like George Arliss) who is plotting to reveal the Queen's alleged infidelity with an Englishman (Lester Matthews) she has given a passport to in order to leave the country. Ameche falls in love with the Queen's lady in waiting (a dull Pauline Moore) while the Cardinal conspires with the scheming Lady DeWinter (a fun Binnie Barnes) who must undergo humiliation by the Ritz Brothers as part of her acting assignment. The result is a mixed bag that would later be done more seriously by MGM in 1948 and as a light-hearted comedy/adventure in 1974.The love songs seem like relics out of the days of Broadway operetta, which it had been in the 1920's, while the comedy tunes seem like spoofs of Gilbert and Sullivan. The Ritz Brothers are amusing, but their buffoonery is inappropriate in its trying to make us believe that Ameche would not see through their silliness. Recent Oscar Winner Joseph Schildkraut is only seen briefly as the King, but popular screen villains John Carradine and Lionel Atwill get to pop up and do their thing. The first Ritz Brothers gag (involving a drinking contest) is straight out of the Three Stooges, while a novelty musical number (involving the brothers clad in pots and pans being used as musical instruments) is slightly amusing. The feathered hat-wearing Ameche lays the over-acting a little thick here, reminding me of the old line about a similar performance being referred to as "a ham with a feather in it". It is enjoyable as light-hearted fare, but serious lovers of the story are better off sticking with the 1935, 1948 and 1974 versions.

richard-1787 This is a perfectly likable, but also perfectly forgettable movie. Don Ameche had charm, and he shows that here. The Ritz Brothers were second-rate Three Stooges, but they're about as good as they ever got here. Binnie Barnes is nice to look at. The plot is forgettable, which wouldn't have been a problem if the songs had been any good, but they are all completely and instantly forgettable.Still, to judge from the sets, Fox must have thought this movie had box office potential: it's not cheaply made.If it's on and you have nothing better to do, it's a pleasant way to pass an hour.It's not worth seeking out, though.

mosthappyfella The renowned late British film historian Leslie Halliwell includes this film in his book " Halliwells hundred" as one of the funniest and under-appreciated musical spoofs in his long film going experience...this prompted me to take a look at it , and indeed it IS funny and it makes one wonder why the Ritz brothers are now all but forgotten by the general public(well, that shouldn't surprise anyone, as the "general" public has the memory of a fruit-fly when it comes to classic cinema...) and their contemporaries the 3 stooges are still so over-appreciated and all over the place....cults are strange things and often owe more to snobbish "in-the-know"-isms than real talent.... Nevertheless....the other review of this movie on this site seems to be a little besides the point....this is a bit of fluff, but it's Great fluff, made with style and often more straightforward and to the point than other more pompous versions of this old yarn...relax and enjoy it : its entertainment...as light and pleasant as a summers breeze, as funny as your self-important uncle falling face down in a cream pie! And oh yes, I DO know Friml's score for " the 3 musketeers"...it COULD have been used yes, but boy would it have been BORING!

bkoganbing After viewing this film I wound up scratching my head with so many questions of how this thing ever got made in the first place.Firstly three years before there was a straight dramatic version of The Three Musketeers that starred Walter Abel as D'Artagnan by RKO. That film was well received although it didn't transform Abel into a leading man. Why Darryl Zanuck made another version so soon is beyond me.Secondly Rudolph Friml wrote a fine operetta of The Three Musketeers in the 20s. The score here by Walter Bulloch and Samuel Pokrass is singularly unmemorable. Who knows why Friml's music wasn't used, but it should have been.Zanuck had the ideal D'Artagnan on his lot in Tyrone Power. But since Power didn't sing and Don Ameche always got sloppy seconds in roles at Fox, he got the part. Poor Ameche, he tried his best and he even gets into the comic elements of the film, but it's no good.At year 2004 very few people know of the Ritz Brothers. They were good burlesque comedians who Zanuck signed up. Their humor was of The Three Stooges variety, but each stooge had an individual personality. You can't tell one Ritz from the other. In the film they take the place of the real Athos, Porthos, and Aramis and they and Ameche bungle their way into one situation after another.Of the women in the cast I have to say that Binnie Barnes as Milady DeWinter gets into the spirit of the slapstick with the Ritzes.It's a mess this film, but more so when you think that a straight musical with the Friml score could have been done and now probably never will and a version with Ty Power as D'Artagnan would have been a classic.