The Three Muscatels (1991) User Reviews

What will Richard do to keep his wife happy

[FilmCurator · 2/10 · 24 February 2016]

The Alexander Dumas story,adapted to stink on ice.This trash was written by Richard Pryors wife,Flynn Belaine Pryor.He married this woman not once,but twice.I get the impression Pryor was pressured by his wife to appear in this film.It appears to be shot on a budget of $17 US.Can't see what's going on most of the time due to poor lighting.Crappy acting,crappy costumes.Production values...huh??

The great Renaldo Rey appears as King Alberto Nacho.This film is just a little oddity with the freakin' legend,Richard Pryor.Very much worthwhile to see,if only for Mr. Pryor,and the laughs at how badly made The Three Muscatels is.Contender for worlds worst movie marathons.I love it.

Have I ever seen a worse film than this?

[michael_robert_burns · 1/10 · 29 September 2005]

It's the kind of movie that, after just ten minutes, you know for sure that every second further you watch will be a complete waste of your life. The Three Muscatels would be decent but for:

• Truly awful acting

• Depressing attempts at one-liner jokes

• Unbelievably appalling cinematography that would offend a braindead runt-of-litter baboon with no eyes or limbs

• More production gaffes than you can keep track of

• A non-existent storyline claiming to be based on a piece of classic literature (clearly nobody involved with this film has ever read it)

• Miserable French, Spanish and English accents

• You actually cannot understand a word any of the characters says, partly because of the terrible, terrible accents; but mostly due to the sound quality which is so dire it makes one question just what equipment (if any) has been used

• I am still coming to terms with the knowledge that The Three Muscatels was made in 1991, it cannot be true

Even the presence of Richard Pryor (who is mildly amusing in his cameo as a drunken bum) cannot save this movie. For all the above reasons, the viewer struggles to understand what is going on - there is a scene in the 17th century King of Spain's court, where a bunch of girls dressed in cringeworthy 1980s apparel appear out of nowhere and start dancing to a cringeworthy 1980s synth beat, with strobe lights flashing. What?

I don't know how many grams of magic mushrooms one would have to ingest to understand this 'film', but it would be more than I am willing to chance.

Don't bother

[toe-6 · 1/10 · 22 March 2008]

As others have commented, the production values, sound, picture, scenery, etc are truly abysmal. On its own this is a good enough reason for not watching this film. Couple this with actors unworthy of the title, a script confused and confusing, comedy that is devoid of humour, that just doesn't work, and you are left with a film of no conceivable merit. I am left wondering how such a film was ever made.

It is a tragedy that a great iconic comedian such as Richard Pryor has this in his list of credits. Were it not to warn others of the lack of merit in this film, the three muscatels would not be worthy of any comment.

after 12 years of anticipation, what a disappointment

[Vinylm · 1/10 · 25 October 2003]

Dumas is probably rolling over in his grave as a result of this "adaptation" of his novel, The Three Musketeers.

Filmed in Atlanta in 1991, Richard Pryor narrates and appears as both a wino and bartender.

Cinematography is horrible. Most of the cast cannot be seen due to poor lighting. The dialog and acting performances aren't any better. Fake and really bad Spanish and French accents don't help either.

Production values are poor at best. The King of Spain in the 1700's apparently had a modern builder who had sheet rock at his disposal. There's even a scene with an electric lamp. One of the peasants and a few of the soldiers/muscatels wear tennis shoes (and they admit to wearing ADIDAS in the script)

Fake facial hair runs rampant.

Although the film was produced in 1991, it more closely resembles something made in the 70's.

Even the non-dream sequences at the beginning of the film are cliche' and are very wooden.