The Three Musketeers

If memory serves, I'd written this off as a "Prince of Thieves" cash-in at the time (even as a teen, it seemed obvious). But it's an unfair comparison and "The Three Musketeers" is entirely its own thing. This is a spirited, well-mounted adventure with evident chemistry between the lead foursome. Not to mention Tim Curry's undeniable screen presence and Michael Kamen's expert scoring. It's a good story with enough weight but still a sense of fun throughout; and you can primarily thank Oliver Platt for this, because he's clearly having fun. Plus, he's able to hold his own against the bigger names in the cast.

Add in the clanging of rapiers and some wonderfully un-Disney sexuality, Older Me finds this movie a pleasure to watch.

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.

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.

Produced by Walt Disney Studios and loosely based on the Alexandre Dumas père epic 'cloak and sword' romance novel, "The Three Musketeers" is a lighthearted action / adventure flick plenty of humor with a good cast of (then) young stars, some of them coming from previous collaborations such as "Young Guns" or "Flatliners".

Director Stephen Herek ("Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure"; "The Mighty Ducks") and the screenwriter David Loughery ("Dreamscape"; "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier") gave it a modern twist to some of the dialogue and situations and the result is a fresh take on an all time classic, a 'popcorn flick' that entertains without insulting the audience.

The characters are colorful enough; the humor works; the pace is frantic and the action sequences are mostly, well done, the movie never gets boring and the cast delivers appropriate performances, from the over the top cheesy villain of "Mr. Rocky Horror Picture Show", Tim Curry as the malevolent Cardinal Richelieu to the more serious in tone, but way effective, Rebecca De Mornay as Milady de Winter.

Chris O'Donnell & Gabrielle Anwar, fresh from their breakthrough roles alongside Al Pacino in Martin Brest's "Scent of a Woman", play respectively D'Artagnan and Queen Anne of Austria, with Hugh O'Connor (the young Christy Brown in "My Left Foot") as her husband, King Louis XIII of France. O'Donnell displays well on-screen the reckless Gascon who dreams to be an honored Musketeer like his late father.

Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland, together again after "Young Guns", play the (not so) religious Aramis and the regretful Athos, with Oliver Platt stealing all the Three Musketeers' scenes as the flamboyant 'bon-vivant', Porthos. Sheen got the top billing due to his star status back in '93, but his character is the emptiest in story arc and the Musketeer with less screentime (and less memorable, too).

Michael Wincott, forever the 'baddie' ("Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves"; "The Crow"; "1492 - Conquest of Paradise") is once again, excellent portraying an evil character as Captain Rochefort.

Julie Delpy's role as Constance is too small for even get some consideration and Paul McGann in the dual role of the D'Artagnan's fellow Gascon with a feud, Girard and one of the Cardinal's guards, De Jussac plays both differently as if it were not the same actor.

In short, if a viewer wants to watch a more sober, closer to the book and much longer adaptation of this all time classic, should check the Salkind's produced epics of the 70's directed by Richard Lester and starred by Michael York as D'Artagnan; Oliver Reed as Athos; Richard Chamberlain as Aramis; Faye Dunaway as Milady De Winter and Charlton Heston as the Cardinal, if not, and just want to spend less than 2 hours of pure escapism, this version is the one to get.

Fans of movies such as "Young Guns", "The Rocketeer", "The Mummy" or "The Mask of Zorro" will appreciate this unpretentious, but entertaining flick.

I not only liked this movie, but I feel a need to defend it and the Walt Disney company.

Walt Disney movies are notorious for plot changes. Almost no movie touched by them is safe from this process. From cartoon production to live action films, any adaptation by Disney is going to have plot changes to suit there vision of the final product. For example, their cartoon The Sword in the Stone bears almost no resemblance to the original story of King Arthur.

To say that Disney does not stick to the original plot is like saying an elephant does not ride a bicycle. It is obvious, even before you see it, that this is not going to happen. This is why they are adaptations. The definition of adaptation is "The condition of being made suitable to an end." Disney sets what they want the end product to be and adapt the story line to meet that goal. They did, however, remain close enough to the original story line that one who had not read the original might be intrigued enough to do so.

This movie was made for one reason... to entertain. Sure money was a motive, but if it does not entertain, it does not make money. And, as with most Disney adaptations, if you approach it with the understanding that liberties have been taken, it not only can entertain, but can be downright enjoyable as well. Disney will never fully stick to an original story line for any adaptation they produce. This is how they make it "theirs". This is how they give it that twist that a lot of people have come to expect from a Disney film. And once this IS expected going into the movie, you can watch it in the spirit in which it was released.

And remember this, the cast all had the opportunity to read the script BEFORE they agreed to make the movie. If they had any qualms about the quality of the writing, you can be assured they would not have put their reputations on the line.