It's 1649: Mazarin hires the impoverished D'Artagnan to find the other musketeers: Cromwell has overthrown the English king, so Mazarin fears revolt, particularly from the popular Beaufort.... See full summary »
The hot-headed young D'Artagnan along with three former legendary but now down on their luck Musketeers must unite and defeat a beautiful double agent and her villainous employer from seizing the French throne and engulfing Europe in war.
Paul W.S. Anderson
Investigating the mysterious deaths of a number of farm animals, vet Rack Hansen discovers that his town lies in the path of hoards of migrating tarantulas. Before he can take action, the ... See full summary »
John 'Bud' Cardos
When a Midwest town learns that a corrupt railroad baron has captured the deeds to their homesteads without their knowledge, a group of young ranchers join forces to take back what is ... See full summary »
In 17th century Paris, a dashing swordsman named D'Artagnan finds himself at odds with the powerful forces taking over France. He sets out to avenge the murder of his parents and finds his country cleaved by chaos and civil unrest. His heart softens only for Francesca, a fiery peasant girl who claims D'Artagnan's heart on sight. Written by
Sujit R. Varma
D'Artagnan did really exist. His name was Charles de Batz and was called D'Artagnan when he arrived in Paris probably because he was coming from the south-west of France (where the movie was partly shot) and where is the little city of Artagnan. See more »
In one of the carriage action sequences there are jet contrails, and a jet visible in one shot. See more »
You've gone too far. I wish to scare the Spaniards, embarrass the King. I want political tension, not war.
Febre the Man in Black:
The Spaniards *were* scared. You could see it in their faces just before died. And I'm certain King Louis feels embarrassed.
See more »
This is a movie that really doesn't know what it is. For one thing, it seems to try and hang on to some parts of the story by Dumas, and yet it also is an entirely different story. Seemingly, the only real similarities are the names of the characters. This movie would be much more effective if it was entirely its own story, and not using the names of the famous characters. The reason? This movie totally dashes the names of those characters.
The most unsettling part for me was the fact that the Three Musketeers are nothing like themselves. Porthos is not the least bit arrogant or over-the-top. Aramis isn't religious at all. And Athos does not even remotely resemble the character in the book. Sadly, Justin Chambers makes a better d'Artagnan than Chris O' Donnell, but only because he doesn't do any acting at all, which is better than the profuse overacting of O' Donnell. And Stephen Rea is a good actor, but his character isn't remotely as menacing as Richelieu should be.
With all of that said, if you just view it as a movie, and try to block the actual story out of your mind, it can be entertaining. The fight scenes are very well done, and the pacing keeps the viewer interested. Perhaps this movie could have been really good if it was about the story of a musketeer NOT named d'Artagnan, and his unique adventure. But since it tries to be an interpretation of Dumas, it falls miserably short. As a movie, it is so-so, but as far as an interpretation of the famous story, it is absolutely terrible.
7 of 7 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?