This was a reasonably well done movie, I suppose. However, it really got on my nerves that, well.... It seems as though the movie writers have never read the book. It has the main characters trying to save the king from the Cardinal Richelieu, but really in the book D'Artagnan was after his own interests. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis are not as well developed as in the book, and several important plot points have been forgotten,
I don't mean to bring it down, it is a well done movie, but I'm really picky about following the plot. Like when The Hobbit came out, I thought that was good but was picky about plot.
I agree with the other two reviewers that this movie was ok, but there are definitely better versions. I know that D'artagnan is supposed to be kind of an annoying character, but this one really got on my nerves. Just looking at his hair made me sound like my mom, "Get that hair cut!" But the other actors were pretty good, and the action sequences were decent. I agree that the Kiefer Sutherland version was better, but this was alright. I wonder if people who are into Steampunk will like it?
It was entertaining, but not what I had hoped for, expected. I did notice that Matthew Macfadyen, who played in the movie Pride and Prejudice was one of the Musketeers. I agree that you need to suspend your disbelief and just try to have fun.
submitted by GJBarnett2 on March 19, 2012, 4:20 pm
An almost steam punkish Jules Vernian SF version in which Dumas immortal plot is still discernible beneath the CG and great production values. Haughty but willing virgins meet arrogant swordsmen (pun intended). Prepare to suspend your disbelief. Not up to the 1993 Charlie Sheen/Kiefer Sutherland version or even the 1978 Oliver Reed/Richard Chamberlain version, let alone the classic 1948 Gene Kelly/Lana Turner version which remains the classic but still worth the time on a rainy day.