|Page 1 of 30:||          |
|Index||293 reviews in total|
The star of the show is Justin Chambers and he gets incidental billing
which is ridiculous despite his lack of acting skills. More good and
BAD - Having a weak lead actor is not the way to have box-office success. Stupid dialog doesn't help either, along with the Rambo action mentality in which the good guy doesn't get hit from close range.
GOOD - Some of the action scenes were spectacular, the best swordplay I've ever seen. The ones at the beginning and the end of the film were the best, with some incredible stunt work. This is beautifully photographed, too. Tim Roth was a good villain, as usual, and the heroes - even if they couldn't act - were fun to watch. The language is tame in here and the film should be rated PG, not PG- 13.
The Musketeer really did the novel it was based upon no justice what so
ever. The movie had incredible stunts and great fights...if you were in
the Matrix. These fights are the only reason I give this movie a rating
There is no acting what so ever. Tim Roth, although he can play a great villain, he shows barely any emotion. Justin Chambers is the same way. I'm sure he didn't perform those stunts such as the ridiculous scene where he is pictured jumping from saddle to saddle across moving horses.
This movie brings nothing to the table except fancy martial arts. Keep in mind this takes place in old France. I don't recall the Musketeer's learning how to fight while rolling across wooden wine barrels.
If you are desperate for a fight scene, be my guest. There are certainly some good fights going on in this picture. Everything in between is just a joke. The Musketeer is not the worst movie ever made, but it's far from great.
Just really, really, really bad!
First off, this film is too much action, not enough story. The first time we see D'Artagnan fight, there doesn't seem to be any point to it, other than the fact to let us know that he's this amazingly (and somewhat unbelievably) skilled swordsman and fighter. He also escapes the situation way too easily, thanks to pathetic bluff and a cut away.
The only saving grace in this film (in my opinion) is Tim Roth, who had to make due as best he could with a very bad script. But he looked cool (the only person in this film with any fashion sense whatsoever). Although later in the film he appears to have borrowed his Aunt Ida's - Sunday church revival meeting hat.
Stephen Rea, who I usually find extremely enjoyable to watch - came across as very ineffectual as the Cardinal Richelieu. Instead of being the great evil and manipulating mastermind, he almost seemed the puppet of Tim Roth's Febre...a character I've never heard of before, who seemed to fill the role previously occupied by Rochefort, as the one eyed man who killed D'Artagnan's father.
(oh for Tim Curry's Richelieu)
Justin Chamberlain is incredibly dull in this movie, and never seemed to show any emotion. It almost seemed like he sucked the life out of the actors around him. His character comes across as a thinly veiled Bruce Wayne. A young boy who watched his parents get murdered in front of him, but could do nothing. He's taken in by the kindly older friend of his father's. He then grows up and trains himself to be the best fighter, to become a hero and stop what happened to his parents from happening again.
Athos, Porthos and Aramis might as well not even have been in the film. All of the Musketeers were portrayed as drunken, miserable, arrogant, lazy jerks. Apparently D'Artagnan is the only one who still holds the ideals of the Musketeers. It seemed like Athos was only there to avoid the question - Shouldn't there be 3 of them? He didn't do a damn thing. They gave all of his character traits to Aramis, and Aramis the wouldbe priest was nowhere to be found.
King Louis XIII and Queen Anne were in their late 50's (huh?) and were childless. Okay, where do Louis XIV and Phillipe come from then? I somehow doubt that a woman in her late 50's in 17th century France would be up to having twins. As far as I know, they should have been young, and not even married yet.
The Musketeers all seemed closer in age to their Man in the Iron Mask selves, than their Three Musketeers selves. Athos even had grey in his beard.
You would think that the King's Musketeers could have afforded to dress better. Everyone looked like a bum...and there were a LOT of bad hats in this movie. D'Artagnan looked like he should have been riding the range in 1880's Oklahoma. And don't even get me started on the mullets. Did everyone in 17th century France grow up in the 1980's? The hair extensions on Justin Chamberlain were pretty bad too.
The romance between his character and Mena Suvari didn't make much sense, and seemed very forced. Although it gave D'Artagnan an excuse to go skinny dipping so the bad guys could kidnap his girlfriend.
Bad bad bad dialogue. When Mena Suvari threatened to cut off someone's balls...I pretty much gave up all hope.
The action and fight sequences were way over the top. Apparently the Cardinal makes sure his men are well versed in the fine art of - How to engage in a swordfight while hanging 100 feet in the air one handed from a rope in the rain and not fall to your death. The final fight between D'Artagnan and Febre (in what we dubbed "The Ladder Room") was too much. It seems the ladders are strong enough to support two grown men who are jumping and balancing on them, but are powerless when it comes to the mighty rapier blade. It got to the point where I was thinking - for crying out loud, would you just stand still and fight already!
D'Artagnan also has this amazing horse that appears out of nowhere when he whistles (despite having run off in a different direction earlier, or having been left lying in the road practically dead that morning).
What I found interesting is, it seems that the Musketeers all bought their cassaque cloaks at Disney's The Three Musketeers wardrobe sale. They looked EXACTLY like the ones worn by Kiefer, Charlie and Oliver...right down the length, colours and embroidery.
One of the most confusing moments came when it looked as though a character had been fatally shot, only to remark - I'm not dead. But there is no clear explanation as to why they aren't dead, and show up later no worse for wear.
I guess the palace kitchen staff are very stupid, as none of them realize that some of them have been replaced by imposters, nor does anyone notice that one of the waiters is wearing a sword...well okay, one person notices, but that scene is silly and kinda creepy.
Oh and the swords are all pretty ugly. I'm also trying to figure out, why if they hired a Hong Kong fight director to do all the choreography, did they also have a sword master?
Well that's my Musketeer rant. As always that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
The thing is that "The Musketeer" is not only the absolutely worst
adaptation of the Alexandre Dumas novel's I have ever seen. What is
more for me it's also a very strong contender for being called one of
the worst movies ever. Actually this rubbish has nothing to do with
classic Dumas' "Three Musketeers".
For unknown reason screenwriters changed simply everything and in the result they got silly and laughable story filled with numerous plot holes and anachronisms. Dialogs look like they were written by a modern teenager and somehow characters development was totally forgotten. No one cares about movie's characters, they're uninteresting and pathetic while the whole movie is emotionally flat practically all the time. Poor direction leave room only for pointless action with ridiculously made in Eastern style fight scenes sometimes mixed with silly jokes. Add to all this horrible acting and most likely you'll get a well-deserved position in your all-time worst list. Absolute waste of 40 million dollars as well as your precious time and money. Avoid it as a plague.
2 out of 10
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.
If you are a fan of swashbuckling, this is not a film to miss, as long as
able to overlook the bad acting and the obvious Asian influences in the
I have seen worse films. Most definitely. The rating of 4.2 is much too low for this movie, I think a 5.5 to 6 is more appropriate. It's not a great movie by any means, but it does have it's moments.
The opening swordfight in the resturaunt is the best in the movie. At least it was the most believable with the exception of the barrels. I found the ladders and some of the ropeplay in the Versailles to be much more unrealistic. However I tend to like movie due to the sophistication of the choreography, because I am involved in fighting choreography too.
I for one don't understand how people can rate this as a 4 or less and
then say Eraserhead is a masterpiece. The whole reason the movie was
called "The Musketeer" is it pretty much has no relation to Alexandre
Dumas' classic novel. The 1973 Three/Four Musketeers is about as close
to the book as we're going to get. This movie the acting is hampered by
really stupid dialog. It made George Lucas movies look literate.
The action is great, but completely out of historical reality, then again its a movie, not a documentary. Entertaining? Yes, I thought so. Not as much as seeing Oliver Reed and Micheal York. As bad as the lead was, he was Oscar caliber compared to the absolutely useless Chis O'Donnell in the 1993 version. Given a choice between the 1993 version and this movie, I'd take this one.
If you want a good swashbuckler, stick to Errol Flynn, or even Mask of Zorro. If you want Musketeers see the 1973/74 version. Better yet, just pick up the book.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The Musketeer is a film very loosely based on Alexandre Dumas' classic
novel The Three Musketeers.It stars Catherine Deneuve, Tim Roth, Mena
Suvari, Stephen Rea, Nick Moran, Bill Treacher and Justin Chambers.The
movie was directed by Peter Hyams.
The Musketeer was set 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. D'Artagnan, after witnessing his unarmed parents slain by the evil Febre ,grows up wanting to be a musketeer, one of King Louis XIII's loyal protectors. Upon arriving in Paris, however, he finds that the Musketeers have been disbanded by order of Cardinal Richelieu, who is usurping the king's authority with the help of his lethal henchman, Febre.Traveling to Paris, D'Artagnan verbally spars with witless quip- spouting musketeers Aramis, Athos and Porthos. D'Artagnan heads off guarding the queen, who is traveling incognito as a commoner on her way to meet Lord Buckingham. The evil Febre, his leash held loosely by the evil Cardinal Richilieu, wants to kill the Queen in order to sow unrest and war, which would create opportunities to profit, a war between France and England.
The Musketeer is a film that relies mainly of cheesy action scenes mostly on cheesy and unrealistic swordplay.Aside from that,it also has poor story that makes minimized Dumas' classic into a forgettable novel. Acting is decent and the editing presents somewhat a confusing story.
Overall,The Musketeer is a MUST MISS film.
I dissent from the negative comments based on comparisons to the novel, or
earlier " Three Musketeer" movies. This movie has no pretense of remaking
the novel, or earlier movie versions ( the Michael York/Raquel Welch version
is a classic). It is, at most, a modest "prequel", designed to capture young
action viewers, and romantics ( Justin Chambers/ Mena Suvari); dirty old men
( Mena Suvari); and Deneuve fans (as all men ought to be).
Mena Suvari is wooden and ornamental, but Chambers here is at least as good as Heath Ledger in "A Knight's Tale". Deneuve is excellent as always. Tim Roth is a definitional villain, although Stephen Rea is a weak Richeleau. Lesser knowns as the other musketeers , and the French actor as " Planche", add spice.
I am a sucker for swordfighting movies, so loved this one.
There are many worse choices in your video store.
I doubt I need to explain the plot. It's Three Musketeers, nuff said.
However this time, it has action choreographed by Hong Kong master Xin
Xin Xiong (martials arts buffs among you may recognize the name).
Neat production values and some interesting kung-fu/swashbuckling set pieces, like sword duels on the side of a tower or across ladders, aside, this is a really dull, lackluster version of the classic adventure (at least W.S' mess had some steampunk thrown in, and even Disney gave us the forever badass Michael Wincott and a rather amusing Oliver Platt).
OH BOY, OH BOY, where to start? Well, the performances are flat-as- shot-tires all around, with the normally terrific Stephen Rea as a seemingly always monotone Richeleu being especially inexcusable. Mix that with thin characters that aren't engaging or lively in the slightest, and a plot that oversimplifies the story absurdly to focus solely on D'Artagnan, making the other Musketeers almost redundant, as well as even more lifeless (the witty repartee and banter, as well as 'All for One' friendship that almost every other version has? Completely Absent). And as if this cake needed more icing, the utterly generic score from the otherwise talented David Arnold (Stargate, Sherlock) that doesn't do much adrenaline pumping, nor has any real whimsy or levity to it.
In the end, this is the text-book definition of 'unnecessary'. The concept of swashbuckling + kung fu should make for, at least, good cheesy fun, but when that is the ONE and ONLY thing your movie has going for it, you have officially failed as a film maker.
|Page 1 of 30:||          |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|