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 »
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.
11 of 17 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this