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
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 »
Due to its granular nature, gunpowder of the period was highly susceptible to moisture. Once even a tiny bit of moisture got into any amount of gunpowder, it was very difficult to ignite, even impossible. Therefore it is highly unlikely that any of the muskets, pistols, or cannons used in the final battle would have fired. See more »
Ok, I've read a couple of reviews and comments on this movie, and one topic keeps coming up...it's all about D'Artagnan...hello...the name of the movie is The Musketeer not The Three Musketeers. So many others complain that the movie does not follow the book. Well I hope those who made those comments actually read the book and actually listened to the movie preview...The Musketeer is supposed to be a re-imagined version of the The Three Musketeers not a page by page re-enactment of the novel.
Ok, I'll admit some of the fight scenes were ridiculous but nothing that the film-maker didn't warn the audience about,so unless you went into the movie theater blind folded or never saw a martial arts movie, you knew what to expect from a martial arts movie director.
If you haven't read the novel, I recommend you do, it is an unforgettable experience. D'Artagnan was an arrogant young man, and he spoke dryly, as Justin Chambers portrayed his character in this movie. Justin still has a lot of maturing to do as an actor, but nonetheless, he did a good job at capturing D'Artagnan's character as Alexandre Dumas might have invisioned him.
It is obvious that the screenplay writers did not write word for word, they simply summarized the most important scenes from the novel. D'Artagnan watching his parents get murdered, him seeking revenge, wanting to become a musketeer like his father, the way he met Athos, Porthos, and Aramis. The political atmosphere of the time was the same as it was in the book, and our antagonist, was of course as evil as a summarized version can get.
What about the cinematography? Yes it was dark, it was in a way, the director's way of making a movie that was packed with ridiculous action and two well choreographed fight scenes a little more serious. France was at its worst with Spain and England ready to declare war. Hunger and poverty plagued the country. The movie had to be dark, characters had to be in the shadows, this was not the happiest and brightest period of France's history. In his novel, Alexandre Dumas makes it clear that his novel was not just about an awesome adventure but also about history.
All in all, I like the movie,I am not ashamed to admit it. It was fun, and re-imagined, so people should not get too caught up about the story line. One question still remains...why is it that people get all caught up in Justin Chambers' looks? Did people complain about Christopher Reve in Superman or Val Kilmer in Batman, lets admit it, people like attractive protagonists...hello...this is Hollywood!!! what do you expect?
18 of 34 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?