The Three Musketeers (1993)

i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Amateur movie with Big budget

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

D'Artagnan (Chris O'Donnell) intends to follow his father and join the Musketeers in Paris. His father was disgraced for supposedly failing to protect the king. Rochefort (Michael Wincott) working under the evil Cardinal Richelieu (Tim Curry) disbands the Musketeers. Three Musketeers Aramis (Charlie Sheen), Athos (Kiefer Sutherland) and Porthos (Oliver Platt) refuses to surrender. D'Artagnan quickly finds himself with three separate duels with the three Musketeers. He falls for Constance (Julie Delpy) who is a lady-in-waiting with Queen Anne (Gabrielle Anwar). D'Artagnan is captured by Rochefort but escapes after learning of Richelieu's plan to conspire with the English and Milady De Winter (Rebecca De Mornay) to overthrow the King.This Three Musketeers is trying to be another Young Guns. The problem is that it can't quite make this fun without feeling silly. This is a light weight swashbuckling adventure of yesteryears. It has no tension. The chemistry between the Musketeers feels tired. Chris O'Donnell has his joyless sincerity. The movie stalls whenever the swashbuckling action stops.

Based VERY loosely on the novel The Three Musketeers. It tells the story of d'Artagnan (Chris O'Donnell,) on his quest to join the three title characters in becoming a musketeer. Reteaming 'Young Guns' co stars Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland with Oliver Platt as the three Musketeers, and casting a delightful Tim Curry as Cardinal Richelieu and throw Rebecca De Mornay in there too, and the cast alone should scream "This is a winner folks, get in line" however it falls short, and sadly the problem is the casting of d'Artagnan.Chris O'Donnell is far too hot headed and arrogant to be likable, and it makes it hard for you to root for him as a hero. Never a great actor, he seems to have been very fortunate to get some great roles. He starred opposite Al Pacino in 'Scent Of A Woman' the same year as this. Al Pacino acted him off the screen, and won the Oscar, but he was there none the less. Then he managed to nab the role of Robin in 'Batman Forever' and 'Batman & Robin. He then landed a few leading roles in movies, before he turned to TV for regular acting work. Not bad for a guy who can't act and has zero charisma. De Mornay's performance is baffling as her performance gives the impression, she thought the movie was something totally different. Hugh O Conor as King Louis is another weak link, as is Gabrielle Anwar. With a better d'Artagnan, someone like a Brad Pitt or a Johnny Depp (tho Pitt had 'True Romance' and 'Kalifornia' out that year, whilst Depp was starting in 'Benny & Joon' and 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape?' so maybe they weren't available.... Likewise Leo DiCaprio, Depp's costar in 'What's Eating Gilbert Grape?' He also started in 'This Boys Life' with Robert De Niro. Maybe a Neil Patrick Harris (famous for being TV's Dougie Houser MD then) and some improvement in the supporting cast? this would have done better, and would have had franchise wrote all over it. Sheen and Suthwrland are both as fun and reliable as you'd expect, and Platt (the go to fat guy of the 90's) steals a lot of scenes, and had some good lines. The actual Three Musketeers of the title deserve a better movie than what they eventually get.

After seeing almost every version of The Three Musketeers i watched this version expecting to be bored to death. But how can a movie with Tim Curry and Charlie Sheen be boring ? This version was fun to watch from start to finish even though it had some bad choices ( Hugh' O'Connor, Chris O'Donnell) the storyline was OK and the acting brilliant. Athos , Porthos and Aramis were finally portrayed by good actors and Curry was a scheming bastard but funny at the same time.I still have to see a good D'Artagnan and this still wasn't it , O'Donnell came out and the least important character and his acting didn't help.All in all, a fun version and i hoped it would be the last but it looks like i was wrong. Too bad they didn't the Man in the Iron Mask with these actors, it would have been hilarious and we wouldn't have to see the DiCaprio version with some has beens Musketeers.

I got one word for this movie: Stupid! Just flat out, plain stupid!Overall, this was a very entertaining and it had the moments, but I have to say it was one of the worst versions of The Three Musketeers ever and I hope this latest version of The Three Musketeers is better. The plot in this movie did not follow the original plot and there was not enough dialogue between some very important characters from the book. Yes, this movie is meant for entertaining the kids and family, and I will admit there were a couple of times where I laughed at it, but that was mostly because of how stupid and inaccurate the screen writer made the movie.The whole plot is where the Cardinal, who is portrayed as an evil, merciless man, dismisses the musketeers as the king's bodyguards so the musketeers wouldn't be in the way of his evil plan to become king and in comes D'Artagnan who is just itching to be a musketeer like his father finds out about the Cardinal's plot so he and the three musketeers have to go and stop the evil plot. D'Artagnan is a naive and hot-headed little boy and perhaps a bit stupid; Athos is a brave drunk; Aramis is a humble, religious man yet a seducer(?); and Porthos is an arrogant womanizer and a pirate?!?!?! Where exactly did the pirate come from? When D'Artagnan found out Porthos was a pirate, he was actually AMAZED by it! Amazed by it? If D'Artagnan ever first found this out in the first place, he would not even step a foot near Porthos again! Did Disney even know back then that if you were found out to be a pirate or associating yourself with a pirate, you would be hanged?!?!?!?!?! Obviously not! They just think that everything they do in this movie is possible, even with a pirate being able to be a musketeer, not to mention a religious man such as Aramis being a seducer!And where exactly did the ninja come from? This takes place in the 17th century in France, so how exactly does the ninja fit in this movie? If this was a ninja or samurai version of The Three Musketeers, then maybe I would find the ninja believable, but since this is NOT a ninja or samurai version of The Three Musketeers, then I would have to say that Disney did a pretty poor job at creating this movie!The movie was entertaining, but just stupid. Do yourselves and your kids a favor, don't have them watch this horrible crap because it just gives them the wrong idea on the actual historic figures and facts.