IMDb user comments for
The Three Musketeers (1993)

Werbung

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Spoiler verstecken:

Seite 1 von 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Übersicht

116 Nutzerkommentare insgesamt

---

22 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent performances, 15. Dezember 2003

Author: FSUKXAZ von United States

I particularly liked the evil performances of Rochefort (Michael Wincott) and Cardinal (Tim Curry). The rest of the cast includes plenty of A-list types such as Keifer Sutherland, Charlie Sheen, Oliver Platt, Rebecca DeMornay, Gabriel Anwar, and Chris O'Donnell. There are more great one-liners in this movie than a Clint Eastwood film, a Sean Connery film, and a Arnold Schwarzenegger film combined. This movie is definately worth seeing and worth owning. Again, Tim Curry and Michael Wincott's performances really do it for me. Evil!

---

17 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
It's Swashbuckling, 2. September 2005

Author: DefierofDarkness von United States

This is what Swashbuckling is all about. It's not a book. It's Hollywood and it's a cartoon. That's what the writer, director and actors envisioned. It's what they portrayed. The basic triumph of good over evil, of justice over self-serving malice. Escapism! And in that light, it's brilliantly done. Come on, it's not a literary masterpiece, nor was it intended to be. It's every child's vision of The Three Musketeers. No different than Burt Lancaster in The Crimson Pirtate. Just plain fun! Have you ever known any real heroes? The archetype is men or women who laugh in the face of danger, give all for those who are weaker and have an attitude of irreverence for all they encounter. They don't think of themselves as greater than others. They just know what their responsibilities are, and they execute them. Sheen, Platt, Sutherland, and O'Donnell all act this out in expert fashion.

---

17 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Eh Adaptation - Okay Action Flick, 11. Februar 2000

Author: Gislef von Iowa City, IA

Nope, it's by no means an accurate adaptation of Dumas' original work. Umm, does nanyone really care? Dumas' plot, while interesting in and of itself to many, is probably not one that many folks who think of "the Three Musketters" could actually _tell_ you.

This movie sets out to more or less capture the feel of such films, rather than the source material itself. In that regard, it's not too badly done. The characters are pretty broadly drawn, but adequate for the younger audience they're aimed at. Sutherland, Platt, and Sheen all seem way too young, but at least the first two are entertaining. Platt in particular manages to steal every scene he's in.

By the same token, Richelieu's character is simplified to "generic bad guy." The King and Queen seem too young as well (although they're represented age may be novelistically and/or historically accurate - again, could most folks really tell you, or care?).

Overall, I'd recommend the movie for some light entertainment, but don't take it too seriously.

---

10 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
A Mindless Popcorn Romp - Save Me?, 4. Juni 2002
Author: (defenestration) von Illinois, USA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

If you're looking for a high quality film that is full of intrigue, quality writing, impressive acting and overall brilliance of production then please may I direct your attention to "The Three Musketeers" (1973)directed by Richard Lester. If you're looking for a fun adventure film full of action and comedy well... that's still the Richard Lester version.

Still here?

This is a popcorn movie. You watch this when you don't want to be bogged down by complex characters and twisting plots. It is a film full of obvious cliches and key moments that, should you be at all familiar with movies, are neatly spelled out within the first 5 minutes. There isn't anything wrong with that but lets not pretend that this is in any way a good movie. It is a mindless action flick made by Disney. If you like that, then yay and may you enjoy the movie.

Quick Guide to Understanding the Movie (minor spoilers):

The King and Queen are both extremely noble and deep down are very much in love. They're just afraid to admit it. Sure, you might be asking yourselves "where's Buckingham?" but we're supposed to forget he exists. So never let it enter your pretty little heads that these people are anything less than rulers by divine right because they're simply FABULOUS!

Rochefort not only betrayed the musketeers (he was one) but he also offed D'Artagnan's father. You might be wondering where THAT one came from but it looks more damn noble when D'Artagnan not only kills a baddie but also is avenging the musketeers and his father at the same time. There must be no ambiguous characters in this film. All of the antagonists here are REALLY, REALLY EVIL!

Except maybe Milady de Winter. Why? Milady de Winter redeems herself. Seriously. Why are you looking at me that way? I'm not kidding! Right before she's about to be hanged for her crimes she tells our heroes all about the Cardinal's evil scheme and jumps off a well placed cliff. So she's redeemed and kinda splatty.

The Cardinal is evil. No, not working for the good of France but from his own (perhaps slightly warped) perspective. Clear cut, open and closed, baby eating evil. Okay, he doesn't eat babies. That we see. But I'm sure he does it! He's evil, he wants the throne (or the equivalent power) and he also wants Anne (the queen). He REALLY wants Anne. Can I tell you all how much I miss Buckingham?

If you're looking for depth, GO AWAY! Run, even. But if you're not then its an okay film, I guess. It is pure light-hearted cheese but that can be fun at times. Personally, this one was not my cup of tea. Oh, except for Paul McGann being in it. If you're a fan of Paul McGann and you want a good laugh, go see this film! He's a hoot as Girard (and Jussac).

---

6 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
The comic book version, 15. Januar 2007
Author: tynesider von Tyneside, United Kingdom

This is a very ordinary version of The Three Musketeers. Film versions of classic novels should at least bear some resemblance to the plot of the novel from which they are adapted, even if they are just pot-boilers intended for a family audience like this one, and not meant to be taken too seriously. But this is a very loose adaptation indeed.

The acting is just up to the level required and the dialogue is a mix of pseudo-17th century and contemporary Americanisms which fail to convince the viewer that he/she is watching a picture set in 17th century France. Though the production is quite a handsome one, with the sets, locations, and costumes all nice to look at, the characters are not well-drawn, in particular those of Cardinal Richlieu, portrayed as an out and out villain, admittedly enjoyably, but with little depth, and D'Artagnan who is played as naive, arrogant and pompous and not as a particularly likable character.

Other comments stress that this is a Disney picture made for the family, but that should not save it from criticism. Compare it with Disney's Treasure Island, or Kidnapped, both much superior adaptations. Nor have they helped children understand the novel. Because it is so loosely based they would hardly recognise it as The Three Musketeers if the characters' names had been changed, though I do agree that film adaptations don't have to follow the source novel absolutely faithfully.

But is it entertaining? Yes and no. The villains are hiss-able, Aramis, Arthos and Porthos are sometimes entertaining, despite the questionable dialogue they are given, and Richlieu, though often over the top, has his moments. The action scenes are OK but not done with any great verve compared with the Richard Lester version. Milady does not feature as a really central character in the plot as she should and in fact many of the novels' characters do not appear in the film at all.

Read the book and see the 1973 version and forget this one if you are over 16.

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Hilarious-for all the wrong reasons, 18. August 2005

Author: Way_The_World_Ends von United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

OK, first of all, you can't take this movie seriously. At all. I found this on TV and though "wow, Keefer Sutherland, Tim curry and Charlie sheen with swords, must be a cool movie." if you go in saying that, you will be disappointed. However, me and my brother were laughing the whole way through. The action is insanely over the top, the bad guys make the funniest noises when they die!! Also, EVERY cliché is in this movie. The harsh character who hates everyone and then has a stand-off against the enemy allowing the others to escape and think he's dead and then miraculously come back! Me and my bro were cackling as we pointed out this and similar stuff. Tim curry is funny as heck too. it seemed like he was thinking "I'm stuck with this, so why not have fun?" and makes the main baddie, Cardinal Richelou the biggest perv the world has ever known. This guy comes on to everyone in the movie who vaguely resembles a female, that includes the young king, who looks a woman disguised as a man disguised as Micheal Jackson. The dialog isn't anywhere near the correct time period and while the minor characters at least have accents (though often not necessarily french as they should be) the three musketeers remain pretty darn American. So if you enjoy movies that are side-splittingly bad, filled with cheesy lines and even cheesier enemy death, this is the film for you!! Otherwise, keep your sanity and stay away!

---

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Adventure, 11. Dezember 2003
Author: jack van zant von Elsewhere,CA

This film is but a true fun adventure. It's not to be taken absolutely serious. Nor a direct adaption of the classic book. Has quite notable performances by Kiefer Sutherland, Michael Wincott, Rebecca De Mornay, Gabrielle Anwar, and Paul Mcgann. The cinematography as well is noteworthy, two shots that stand out, that i always use in compilations, the shot of them riding across the plains, and when they charge the castle at the end, with an army of musketeers behind them; always takes my breath away. This is a fun movie! Watch for an escape of reality.

---

10 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
A fun film, if nothing else., 8. September 2002
Author: Skeletors_Hood (skeletors_hood@hotmail.com) von Kansas City

First and foremost, if you have read the Dumas book, then you realize that this movie doesn't resemble the novel in the slightest. The only thing that this movie got right was the names of the characters!

However, I am a big advocate in saying that you should never compare a movie back to its book, and I use this movie as an example. This story has been "Disney-fied" so that it can be called a family film. If you read the book, a true adaptation would not be family entertainment. Disney changed everything that they do. Read the Tarzan novel and compare to the cartoon. BIG changes there. The Little Mermaid. How convenient that Disney left out the fact that Ariel dies at the end of the story.

But what we should judge is the end result. This movie is still entertaining, despite having nothing to do with its literary influence. The characters are portrayed with the same attributes that they have in the book. For instance, D'Artagnan, while very duty bound and honorable, is young and headstrong, and prone to impulsive decisions that will help him to prove his skill and worth. Porthos is self serving and self praising, very vain and cocky, yet has a lust for the finer things in life. Aramis is humble and religious, but very skilled and intelligent, making him a very formidable soldier, yet he also loves the finer things in life. And Athos loves his wine, trying to bury himself in a alcoholic haze to hide the pain that he suffered in losing the love of his life. All of these come through in the movie, and all of the actors were great in performing them.

As far as the story is concerned, Disney likes things black and white, good vs evil. And so, the story changes to make the Cardinal a power hungry man with his own interests in mind. He wasn't like that in the book or in real life, but he was underhanded, and Tim Curry does another great job as the villain that he steals the show.

Overall, a great and enjoyable movie, worth watching with the family.

---

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Just a series of cliches, 27. März 2002

Author: Maryah von Washington

This movie has two things going for it. For one, it has Kiefer Sutherland in it (though he's stuck with really lame dialogue). And secondly, the horse work in the movie is excellent--I especially like that little Spanish horse that D'Artagnan rides in the beginning. Aside from that, it's just a bunch of Hollywood cliches in sequence. It has a tacked-together feel, as if they had a bunch of scenes they wanted to include, but didn't really know how to integrate them into a seamless whole. In some scenes, the Musketeers are light-heartedly slaughtering people, as if it's just a day's bit of fun, and other scenes are more serious and dramatic, but they don't work because the characters aren't adequately developed and don't seem very realistic. So basically the movie just didn't work for me. 5/10

---

8 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Noooooo!!!!, 18. Juli 2005

Author: jpaulgagen von Australia

Hear that whirring sound - That's Alexander Dumas doing about 30,000 rpm.

The Three Musketeers in not a morality play, and it would take me a long time to catalog exactly how horrible this version is. Let's see what remains of the book, the title, the names of the characters, and that's about it.

Now I have no problem with Hollywood setting a morality play in Louis XIII's court, far from it. But I do object to the plundering and complete destruction of a literary classic in order to create it. They've bowdlerized Dumas. What they've done is the equivalent of turning James Bond into a teetotaler who abhors violence and respects women for their personality.

Just stick to the 1970s version starring Michael York as D'Artagnan, or if you can find it the early silent French serialization.

---

---

Seite 1 von 12:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Weitere Links

Plot summary	Nutzerbewertungen	Filmpreise
Newsgroup reviews	Externe Kritiken	Parents Guide
Plot keywords	Hauptübersicht	Your user comments
Your vote history