The Three Musketeers (1993) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
150 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A fun film, if nothing else.
Skeletors_Hood8 September 2002
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.
51 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Eh Adaptation - Okay Action Flick
Gislef11 February 2000
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.
35 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The comic book version
tynesider15 January 2007
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.
27 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Adventure
SkellingtonMan11 December 2003
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.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Underrated swashbuckling adventure from the 90s Young Turks.
BadWebDiver15 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This is a VERY underrated action-adventure story which revamps the classic tale with a lot of top class young talents of the 90s. The humour and action fit together perfectly, and it features some very outstanding scene-stealing performances; especially from Tim Curry (natch!) and Oliver Platt.

<Spoiler Warning>

IMHO, Chris O'Donnell plays a young dashing hero very well in this (my fav movie of his); and Platt, Charlie Sheen and Keifer Sutherland play the classic sword-masters with a great mix of dash and humour. Keifer's dramatic undercurrent to the frivolity going on around him works very well, and helps this from becoming too schmaltzy. The highlight for me was the the scenes where D'Artagnan accidentally arranges three fights with the famous trio; as well as the final climactic showdown of course.
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Excellent performances
FSUKXAZ15 December 2003
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!
47 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Filming on location
Henriette4 August 2005
I love this movie for its humor and tempo and of course because of the nice actors, but what I discovered last vacation made my day. We visited Vienna, Austria and we, my husband, my son Erik and me went to see an underground lake close to Vienna in a town called Hinterbruehl and they told us that this movie was filmed there and I saw the boat used by Cardinal Richelieu(Tim Curry) There are also still prison scenes where the musketeers run through following Richelieu to be seen. Very cool.... It used to be an plaster mine that when it closed was used in the 2nd WW for building airplanes. They still have to drain a lot of water everyday to keep it a touristic attraction. You get a tour in a boat and the water is very clear and cold, but very beautiful.
24 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
It's Swashbuckling
DefierofDarkness2 September 2005
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.
38 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Hilarious-for all the wrong reasons
Way_The_World_Ends18 August 2005
Warning: 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!
19 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Harmless and action packed
jjnxn-115 March 2012
Lightheaded and lighthearted this is the definition of escapist entertainment and that is meant as a compliment. Something to watch when you want to relax and not have to think about the plot of the movie.

Chris O'Donnell is impish if a bit callow in the lead but the real show is musketeers anyway and there is where the movie excels. Keifer is suitably brooding as Athos and Charlie Sheen, before he became a surly twitchy mess, is a charming Aramis. The standout however is Oliver Platt going full on ham as Porthos giving a delightfully over the top performance and walking off with the picture whenever he is on screen.

Rebecca De Mornay also seems to be having a good time enacting the villainous Milady de Winter, she's sexy and silky. Lastly there is Tim Curry positively consuming the scenery as Cardinal Richelieu, in his flowing red robes he and Oliver Platt are in a dead heat for biggest scene stealer.

The production is high class with vibrant with color and beautiful settings, true it bears only a passing kinship with the source book but it is a fun time with lots of action and a carefree mood.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
great family movie
todd2u26 August 2002
One thing people who write reviews about this movie are forgetting is that this is a family movie. I love this movie. Its fun to watch. It has cool sword fights and all that good stuff. In my opinion this is my favorite version of the movie. The soundtrack was awesome. I recommend this movie to anyone who loves the Three Musketeers or just a family movie.
21 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
This movie is an insult to Alexandre Dumas (spoilers)
AlrightGuy22 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is so bad on so many levels. From the first scene, when D'Artagnan duels with an annoyingly shrill caricature (he didn't deserve to be called a character). His opponent is a blatant walking gay joke and is completely inappropriate for what pretends to be a family picture. Also out of place in a family picture were some of the violent images and the generous cleavage shots. Obviously the movie veers from the novel, but it veers so far that the book becomes source material in name only. Aramis is no longer the pious gentleman of Dumas' novel, but instead he is...well, Charlie Sheen with a Bible and cross. The plot is almost completely thrown out and the exact opposite of virtually everything in the book happens. Worst of all, Milady DeWinter is transformed from one of the most evil creatures ever into a sympathetic character who is not really bad and only dies because she chooses to sacrifice herself. The script, if it can even be called a script, is hopelessly corny. It feels like they were trying to do the kind of movie they ended up making with Pirates of the Caribbean but failed miserably. The screenwriter hacks it up, showing no knowledge of ballistics (for the last time, cannonballs DO NOT EXPLODE!), anatomy (a wound to the gut may be fatal, but it will not kill a man within a few seconds), or military procedures (the King's guards would be going into war with the King, not disbanding!), and certainly no knowledge of the Dumas novel. Some things were kept, those things being the three-way duel and the fact that Athos used to be married to Milady. That's pretty much it. Really. That's it. I know we can't expect a page for page adaptation, but this was just awful. Oliver Platt's performance as Porthos was the one good thing, and even then I think it was more Platt being himself than playing the character.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a pathetic movie!
warlover1 February 1999
Ok, want to watch a really bad movie tonight? Go rent this one.

Even people who haven't read the book won't appreciate this farce, and for those who have, they'll never respect any actor who took part in this fleecing of Alexandre Dumas's classic. What is the deal with all this mess? The Musketeers disbanded? Cardinal Richeleau trying to assassinate Louis XIII? Milady going to England to sign a treaty of war with the Duke of Buckingham? She went there to assassinate him! This whole movie is a crock. The producers couldn't leave anything intact. After the fight with the Cardinal's guards, the four men went away delighted with having beatin the guards, they didn't run off and leave D'Artagnan like that. And what is with the gay little charactor fighting D'Artagnan at the beginning? That's not at all how he left for Paris. His father, Rochefort never killed him, gave him his sword, some money, and a letter for the Captain of the Musketeers. D'Artagnan met Rochefort on the road and fought with him on his way to Paris, that's why D'Artagnan really hated Rochefort. I could go one all night like this, but instead, I'll give the readers one piece of advice. Stay away from this movie as you would a rabid dog, rent the 1974 version with Michael York, Richard Chamberlain, Oliver Reed, and Charlton Heston, it's ten times better, follows the book to perfection, and is hilariously funny at the same time. Don't even waste 50 cents to rent this flop. Only watch this version if Mystery Science Theatre 2000 decides to bash it!
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The tracks of Dumas' tears
petra_ste4 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
When it comes to movie adaptations, I am not a purist. More than often the plot of a book HAS to be changed significantly (cutting minor characters, subplots...) to translate well on screen. But there are times when this revisionist attitude goes too far, and this version of The Three Musketeers is one of them.

The classic novel by Dumas père is a fairly straightforward action/adventure tale, so it's surprising they felt the need to dumb it down by ruining the character of Richelieu, radically altering the story and adding an abominable final act - which features scenes such as Richelieu shooting Aramis with a hidden gun and ludicrous boss battles.

Sutherland is not a bad choice as Athos, and could have been acceptable in a serious adaptation. Sheen and Platt, two capable performers, are miscast - or better, their characters have been rewritten to suit them. O'Donnell simply lacks the charisma and fire required by the part.

It's not entirely Curry's fault (albeit his Monty Python-ish performance is an embarrassment), but Richelieu is the movie's worst blunder: the Cardinal in the book is an intriguing, textured character, not a ghoul-like, sneering ubervillain. Other players (De Mornay, Wincott, Delpy) are better, although saddled with pathetic material.

Watch the 1948 adaptation instead (the one with Gene Kelly, Lana Turner and Vincent Price): a better movie, closer to the book and with MUCH BETTER sword duels.

4/10
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Just a series of cliches
Maryah27 March 2002
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
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't watch this.
d_griffin6 January 2007
This movie has no relation with the classic book of Alexandre Dumas. It's just a fiction-action-comedy of Hollywood, and the title should be changed. It shows well known scenario in the form "10 minutes action, woman, 10 minutes fight, beautiful woman" etc. Of course, there's a joke on each 7 minutes. The actors are OK, except the king Luis XIV, who's just too young for this role. The story of the musketeers is about honor and friendship, and I didn't find such thing in the movie. Better watch the Russian version of the "Three Musketeers", it's at least close to the book. I regret that I lose my time to watch this movie.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrific waste of time and film
lamoreaj22118 January 2007
This movie is completely worthless. I have no idea why they did not bother to read the book as it has very little has to do with what Dumas actually wrote. the only thing in common with the book are the characters names! If you want to see an incredible version, watch the Richard Lester version. Perfectly cast and written that movie is a gem. This version is so mis-cast it is shocking. Chris O'Donnell is just to smirky,and What did they do to Constance? I know this was a Disney film but really! Now she is one of the queen's guards? and survives? Athos APOLOGISES to Milady? and she jumps off a cliff?? I was revolted when Gainsborough's blue boy was King Louis XIII. and don't even start me on Tim Curry's Cardinal. I hope it was his direction rather than his acting choices, because his cardinal was a horror. Do NOT waste a second of your life watching this drivel.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Noooooo!!!!
jpaulgagen18 July 2005
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.
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Ludicruous
anne-londez-120 November 2005
One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

All the clichés on how Americans view the French are in there as well as those on how Hollywood sees Dumas (with a totally stupid Hollywood ending as well), with humour so heavy that it can only be taken as a parody and a not very subtle one as that.

The cast does not save it, the actors obviously having been directed to over-act in what I can only suppose is supposed to be humorous but falls quite short of the mark.

This movie gives a bad name to adapting books to the screen and I regret that it can be the first contact of many children with the world of such a great writer.
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Steaming Pile
closeharlan-111 February 2006
How many times does one have to endure the phrase "All for one and one for all" in this piece of mindless Disney drivel? A lot, it seems. far too often for my taste as the phrse becomes a sound bite rather than a declaration of loyalty. Performances worth checking out are by Michael Wincott, and by Tim Currey, who chews screen time with a desperation that doesn't seem necessary given Curry's genuine acting talent. Otherwise this is a total waste of time. In both cases I couldn't help remembering that Tim Currey and Michael Wincott were not Charleton Heston and Christopher Lee. Charlie Sheen, Kiefer Sutherland, and Chris O'Donnel are never convincing as 18th-Century Frenchmen and come across only as 20th-Century actors from the New World. Oliver Platt is amusing but in the end is also unable to make the audience suspend disbelief. The script is insipid and juvenile at best and is an insult to stupid people. I came out of the movie feeling cheated and talked down to. This movie lacks the grandeur and the wonder that a good period piece adventure must have.

For a better handling of this material, check out the Richard Lester films "The Three Musketeers" and "The Four Musketeers" both of which star Michael York and are much closer to the original Dumas.

This version is awful; don't waste your time.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
you've seen the movie, now read the story
mtpaintball26 August 2005
simply put, It's a "fun" movie. But if you care about the history then this isn't for you. But perhaps is entertaining enough to inspire a 1993 Disney viewer into reading about the true story.

definitely not a current Disney release with essence of the films i had while growing up, ie "flight of the navigator." It's good humored, some really good lines actually. Not necessarily factural but still entertaining.

I still prefer watching this over "the musketeer" jet lee meets french swordsmanship... grrrr

the comments about Chris O'Donnells acting is correct but may just be from simplistic diolog that does not follow any linguistic styles of the time. But expected from a Disney production. Tim Curry does a fantastic job actually, simplicit still but he does his job at holding together the piece as well as the comedy from Oliver Platt, very enjoyable. But once again, if anything let this entertain and inspire you to adventure into the story of the three musketeers
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Part of the exclusive and very special club of films that I want to watch from the start again as soon as the end credits have rolled.
chucknorrisrules30 March 2009
I am aware that there is a book of The Three Musketeers, but I haven't read it, so it doesn't matter...what matters is the film itself.

Now, as I have made absolutely clear in the summary above, there are a few movies that are so good that I feel like re-watching them as soon as the credits role. And as I have made clear blahdeblahdeblah...this is one.

The atmosphere is mad and more fun than a barrel of chimpanzees on LSD. The underground dungeons with flaming torches and people sticking their arms through the sardine-like grids and the eeeeeeeeeeevil villains who are shown as ruthless from the word go, are textbook cheese, and just what is needed in this film.

Straight away, we are thrown into the action, with some very pleasant surprises. Chris O Donnell as the hotheaded D'Artagnian, Keifer Sutherland as the (fairly) straight-headed Athos, Oliver Platt as the bonkers but ingenious Porthos (with tricks up his sleeve that come out of nowhere such as a triple-bladed dagger), Charlie Sheen as the religious Aramis, the beautiful Julie Delpy as lady-in-waiting constance, Tim Curry and Michael Wincott as the classic bad guy double-act (with evil villain and secondary baddie with eyepatch), even Paul McGann in a hilarious double-role, sometimes playing a leader in the Cardinal's guard, but mostly playing a wuss who has it in the neck about his sister's 'honour' with D'Artagnian (and was clearly never breastfed by his mother). Not to mention the hilarious mullet that Hugh O Connor sports as the king of France!

The entire film consists of swinging thin swords about, jumping onto moving carts and up and down walls while swinging said swords, meeting beautiful women, and with an exciting climax at the end. If you've read the book, good for you. I hope you enjoyed it. But if you're devoted to it, then avoid any contact with this film. It's action all out romp where the brain does not have to work hard, but just sits back, relaxes, and escapes. If you want deep 'real-life' and 'gritty' stuff, then forget it. This film has none of that. Good vs bad, simple as that.

I'll be honest, I deeply loathe, despise and detest Disney Fairy stories (though animations such as Toy Story and The Lion King get a thumbs-up from me). Having said that though, the mouse house do a damn fine line up in feel-good action romps such as this one and Pirates of the Caribbean, and if you disagree then dive head first into a hospital surgery bin.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best movies ever!!!
Xirit24 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I don't get this people that complain about OH it doesn't follow the book well who cares?? lord of the ring movies and book are similar but not to the full people don't complain there, anyhow just wanna say this is one of the best movies i ever seen. it has everything... action, romance, adventure and dame good actors

thats all from me see this movie Ty

OK they ask me to write ten lines and i can't so i will just say well i don't know but again great performance, and a great Disney movie

and to correct myself lord of the rings movie also in the ten best movies ever
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This Version is so lousy, I laughed
fitzsweetpea20 August 2005
Admittedly, I only saw this stinker once, and it did have us howling with laughter, but it's just cheesy film-making, from the surfer dude accents of these supposed Frenchmen, to the Melrose Place-esquire character interaction. Potential camp classic, however. In one instance of Ed Wood-ity, Val Kilmer is about three stories up on a balcony addressing the Musketeers gathered on the ground below. The Musketeers are yelling and cursing and they sound a mile away, and Kilmer replies in a slithery whisper that the Muskies three stories down hear clear as day, even over their own outcries. So bad it must be laughed at. I usually don't blame an actor for a poor performance, but there is no excuse for Chris O'donnell.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Horrible Hollywood version of classic European story
sulka14 August 2005
Incredibly cheesy Hollywood production. The only thing in common with the real Three Musketeers is the names of the characters and maybe 5% of the plot. Not so hot action scenes which include an eastern two-sworded kung-fu guy fought in ruins, as if the castles were ruined when the movie's story is supposed to happen.

Expect to not understand the story if you don't know the original and if you do, expect to be horribly disappointed at the low quality script adaptation. Having actually read the book, my heart bled at hearing the dialogue.

Can't believe I just wasted a couple hours watching this.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed