I disagree. I really didn't like but still think some of your positive arguments are valid
The Three Musketeers 3D
Written by Film Brain Saturday, 15 October 2011 18:11
Comments (50)
-
10.15.2011 - 20:50 | ultramanmattia
Why they keep ruining old literature classics? Why they are so mean?
-
10.21.2011 - 06:51 | Vismutti
Actually, I personally love the original book but I didn't really mind it being "ruined" because it's been done so many times already and I kind of expected it to be fun at least because of how ridiculous it is. I guess I'll still go see it and hope it's better than this makes it sound...
-
10.15.2011 - 19:16 | Positive Troll
Hi Matt. Good evaluation, my friend. For my money, Richard Lester's The Three Musketeers(1973) and The Four Musketeers(1974) are really good adaptations of the novel by Dumas. It also didn't hurt that they got Michael York as D'Artagnan, Charlton Heston as Cardinal Richelieu and Christopher Lee as Count Du Rochfort.
I'll probably not see this new one. Thanks for the heads up. Peace.
-
10.15.2011 - 19:20 | Salen
So, Paul W. S. Anderson shows off his hot wife in his movie... again... in 3D... again.
WHAT A TWIST!
-
10.15.2011 - 19:46 | FieldMarshalPatton^3when i first saw the trailer i was horrified at this butchery of one of my favorite classics. then i watched it again and thought hey airships sound cool and itll be so bad its good, but thats opinion for you
-
10.19.2011 - 22:09 | SerenityMoonstone
Unfortunately, the ever growing popularity of Steampunk is having a horrible effect on classic literature rather then an interesting aesthetic.
-
10.15.2011 - 19:57 | FrankN.Stein
Aramis? ;)
-
10.15.2011 - 20:00 | Divide By Zero
Gotta love Orlando Bloom's hair in this one. It deserves it's own credit.
-
10.15.2011 - 20:06 | Jegsimmons
i was really hopeing for a Robert Downey Jr. sherlock holmes style adaptation in a steam punkish europe. Unfortunatly....paul W S Anderson gives us shlock and crams his shitty acting wife in for some nude scenes that dont fully deliver.
how do you make airship battles boring?
-
10.15.2011 - 20:07 | BooRat
I still might see it! Just because of Milla! Also, I liked the 90s Three Musketeers movie!
-
10.15.2011 - 20:09 | Carteeg_Struve
I find it funny that some of your criticisms were on points that actually WERE accurate to the book.
As soon as I saw the airship in the trailer I only had two thoughts: Will Cid make an appearance, and I will pass on this disaster.
I'll stick to watching the Michael York version.
At least make me feel better and tell me that Milla gets shortened about 10 inches in this.
-
10.21.2011 - 06:56 | VismuttiMy thoughts exactly. x) Makes me wonder if he's actually even read the book... Which I guess he hasn't.
I prefer the knew French version even though it's completely silly too. Not as silly as AIRSHIPS IN THE THREE MUSKETEERS, though. The French one just had Milady be an actual witch. And a ninja. And d'Artagnan was way too old for the role. For some reason the last thing was the one that bothered me the most.
-
I have yet to see this movie, but I plan to. Not because it looks particularly good, mind you, but because I adore the book. The Three Musketeers is my favorite novel and I make it a point to see every adaptation of it, even right down to the cheesy cartoon version.
I really enjoyed your analysis, and I can't say I disagree with it because I haven't seen the movie. However, I will say that your points about the titular musketeers being put in the background doesn't really make a valid argument against it, as they were background characters in the original story as well - only being fleshed out fully in the thousand-plus novel as a whole. Fitting that much development into a blockbuster movie would be impossible. D'artagnan is the main character and SHOULD be the main character, as it honestly is HIS story. On top of that, the bland Constance was just as incredibly boring in the book, though I will say she becomes much more interesting with time.
Sorry for nitpicking. I really love all your analyses, especially in these Projector videos. I just find it hard to let certain points you make sink in when they really just sound like descriptions of the book the movie is supposedly based on.
Anyway, keep up the good work!
-
10.15.2011 - 20:27 | othyI'm still flat-out refusing to see this film. No-matter what people say I've lost all (of what little) faith I had in Paul WS Anderson since he ruined AvP.
-
10.15.2011 - 21:28 | NaomiHansen
lol, dude, are you trying to redefine the term "fade out?" Because that's the furthest from it that you could get. XD
Movies are starting to give me similar feelings that fanfiction does. In this case, I'm talking about how in both forms of media, I get equally pissed off when I see people adding a (terrible) character to the main cast (even though, yes, that American's character is a part of the original story), especially when it goes horribly wrong. :|
By the way, funny you should mention The Asylum. I went to look up info on the Three Musketeers on Wikipedia, and - SHOCKER - they're gonna be releasing the "3 Musketeers" on October 25, and it looks like it's set Twenty Minutes Into The Future. X3
-
10.15.2011 - 21:27 | PhoCarrot
If I were to be completely honest, I'd have to say I'm only going to see it for Matthew Macfadyen. They could make a movie of him reading my math textbook and I'd still go see it. And enjoy it. And buy it on DVD.
Actually, someone should do that. I might actually get above a C in math for once.
-
10.15.2011 - 21:34 | cubs2084
I'm glad you've been doing Projector more frequently.
-
10.15.2011 - 21:40 | TerminalSanity
This makes the Chris O'Donnell version seem like a masterful translation. Granted its not like anyone should have high expectations for this film aside from having the Paul W.S. Anderson kiss of death even the trailers pretty much tip off the fact it completely desecrates the source material.
-
10.15.2011 - 22:08 | chrismccart
I have to say, I'm really enjoying the projector stuff. It's a good at-a-glance view at what's coming that you can trust won't be talked up unless it honestly has a right to be.
And to be honest, I threw my hands into the air when he commented on Footloose as looking like the new Step Up movie! I've been saying that since the trailer came out! ;b
-
10.15.2011 - 22:18 | LikaLaruku
I HATE slow-down/speed-up special effects.
Could be worse. It could have been that terrible stand-up comedian that keeps showing up at the end of Blip clips.
-
10.15.2011 - 23:11 | Damonashu
When I saw Milla Jovovich I just knew Paul WS Anderson had something to do with this movie, and now that I know Logan Lerman is in it and not only doing a bad job at being European, but also stealing the spotlight from the titular characters I don't think I want to see it anymore. It doesn't help if it really is boring, because when I saw that airship in the commercial I was hoping for something fun.
-
10.15.2011 - 23:39 | mrcheatersonbut do they use muskets?
I know its fiction, but the tiny bit of historian in me keeps yelling "They're musketeers! They use muskets!"
and sadly it is only frikin' Zepplins that grantee I will see a movie, not airships. The trailer made me go 'meh' and your review has reinforced that.
-
10.15.2011 - 23:39 | MelodicBlasphemy
I know next to nothing about Milla Jovovich, so I had no idea she was married to Paul WS Anderson. Now that I know that, I see why the trailers all seem to make her look like she's the main star of this movie. I don't have high hopes for this and pretty much see it as a movie made just to have some big names on there.
-
I'll just stick with the 1993 Disney version, thank you. At Least Tim Curry as teh Cardinal was a memorable villain, unlike the ones in this piece of shit!
-
10.16.2011 - 00:52 | honestiago
Hm... when I heard that this movie was coming out, I was pretty excited... that is, until I saw that it was directed by ol' Paul W. C. "Too Many Names" Anderson. Still, I was hoping they'd at least turn it into a fun, stupid, badass action movie with fun fencing scenes. Well, at least the movie looks like it was better than the book! *ducks for cover*
But seriously, the book had all the same problems as the movie: boring protagonist, boring love interest, and no real villain until halfway through the story. Add that the book was a bigger time-suck and was more than a little misogynistic (some of the things which the heroes do to the eventual main villain, Milady, are not so much heroic as needlessly, gleefully cruel). The one thing I will give the book was that it was a fun, silly action story clearly reminiscent of the old school stories about cavaliers and had some of the most detailed descriptions of furniture that I've ever read. Because when I pick up a fun, romanticized action adventure story, I want to read about furniture. And chauvinistic, misogynistic 'heroes.'
I... am not a fan of that book. Oh well, at least it was better than that pretentious, hippie-dippie Grapes of Wrath! *ducks for cover*
-
10.21.2011 - 07:18 | VismuttiD'Artagnan boring? Aww, I like him. I agree about the chick, though, she was damn boring. But that's the cultural change. Boring women used to be the hottest stuff back in the day, apparently. I never cared too much about the lack of villains because I honestly found it refreshing. I know it's partly just because people are "better" writers nowadays but I love it in old books that they don't fit the form of a "good story". It makes it much less predictable and realistic in my opinion...
Sorry, I just find this subject really interesting, actually. xD; I love old books, especially from that era. Even though they do waste way too much words on furniture. But I do get why people find them boring because... well, they kind of are, if you don't like that kind of style and don't like to read a ten page description about a guy that only appears once in the story. Sooo... I'm not gonna throw anything at you but I do disagree with you.
Oh and the misogynism... Yeah, well, I guess I'm just too used to it by now. Hey, at least there's Anne, she's kind of a cool female character. It helps that she was pretty badass in real life. The movie version sounded all wrong in the trailer... I'm not sure if it's that bad but I fear the worst.
And btw, the sequels are AWESOME. 8D They all turn against each other and there are conspiracies and fights and secrets and drama and death and the characters get way more interesting than in the first book.
-
10.16.2011 - 03:13 | Ben_from_G-town
I'm partial to The Three Musketeers that I grew up with, from 1993, it has Tim Curry as the evil cardinal!
http://www.imdb.com/ title/tt0108333/
This new movie looked awesome, Three Musketeers with a seemingly PotC-esque spin... PLUS AIRSHIPS! How can you go wrong?! Hmm... it's a shame that it seems it wasn't very good. I'd say it might still be worth a watch on DVD, though.
-
10.16.2011 - 03:41 | EpicFish
Great review Mat! I'm really enjoying these Projector videos more and more when you put them out. It really opens my world up to movies I would have otherwise never known about or seen and for that I thank you.
That being said, I've never been a Three Musketeers fan, and if anything, I'd rather watch one of the black and white ones. One thing I've never understood is why is it called "Three" Musketeers when there's four? Seriously! Personally I've always considered D'Artagnan to be a Musketeer and it always seems if he isn't at first, I expect he gets accepted at the end of each film so why bother calling them the Three Musketeers? Hell, as someone who's never read the book(s) or seen any movies, it has always seemed to me the musketeers play second banana to D'Artagnan.
-
10.16.2011 - 03:45 | KamikazeKitten
The action looked decent in this movie and it did look like a lot of fun. Disappointed that it turned out this way. I think it got what it deserved on Rotten Tomatoes.
-
10.16.2011 - 06:03 | Omi-san
Enough with these crappy musketeer movies...
The 3 musketeers (1993)
The Man with the Iron mask (1997)
The Musketeer (2001)
The 3 Musketeers 3D (2011)
-
10.16.2011 - 13:10 | JetstreamGW
Hey man, the 1993 movie was awesome 90s cheese! I love that flick :D Especially Oliver Platt and Tim Curry.
-
10.16.2011 - 06:47 | openfilmden.com
i agree... just another remake ... NOW WITH 3D! Sigh, think about all the money that is wasted on projects like this! Anyhow, good information Film Brain!!
-
10.16.2011 - 07:43 | joelkazoo
Logan Lerman looks like Jason Mewes.
Is Orlando Bloom the poor man's Justin Timberlake, or vice-versa?
-
10.21.2011 - 07:19 | VismuttiDunno, which one of them gets paid more nowadays?
-
10.16.2011 - 09:19 | Guild Navigator
Frightening thought that an Assylum movie could be more..."fun" than a big budget schlock.
-
10.16.2011 - 13:11 | JetstreamGWActually from what I've heard the Asylum has started to actually try being campy and entertaining rather than just shit. Several reviewers have said they've enjoyed some of their recent movies.
-
10.16.2011 - 09:28 | Nomad175Great vid!
And to the movie, sorry but no Jeremy Irons, no watchy.
Only registered users can write comments!
Powered by Compojoom comment 4.2
