The Three Musketeers (2011)

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Putting aside the steampunk effects (which I enjoyed) the movie stuck quite closely to the original plot. I thought that the acting was good as was the dialogue. The 3 musketeers actually looked like the 3 musketeers.James Cordon's comic turn was as good as Roy Kinnear's. Christoph Waltz was a more nuanced Richelieu than Charlton Heston. I saw my first 3 musketeer film over 60 years ago. This seems to be among the best,for my money. I rarely watch a movie more than once./ I have seen this three times and have not been bored yet

A really nice movie. Paul W.S. Anderson has made a chaotic world of it: constant fighting, war, action, ... that was still intriguing me. Normally I have a dislike of historical movies, but this movie is an exception (many versions have already been made of '' the 3 musketeers ''. The last filming was in 2011, the film we're discussing now). The author always warns when it becomes too elongated, the scene is swapped or the situation changes, making it fascinating. so initially I found the movie moderate.The film is about the fact that the musketeers must win the plan for the warship, which they can then use against the enemy. They are also successful, but there is betrayal in the game, causing the plans to fall into bad hands. They were thrown down until a boy from Gascony also wanted to become musketeer. He gave them courage again. In addition, they avoid a war.I'm sorry that it takes a long time for you to be in the story. In that regard, the author should do better. You can also observe that there are many transitions of scenes and places, which you do not necessarily see a connection between those transitions. At last if you saw them fighting, it became very annoying and boring in the long run. But, as I said, the author can keep it interesting.It is a must for people who are interested in history and culture. Of course, you can always watch movies and you do not care what kind of genre. This movie is not really tailored to me because I prefer horror, action, comedy and fantasy in my movie. Therefore I give a 3.5 / 5. My opinion about the movie does not change: it remains a moderate movie.

I was looking forward to this movie. The actors are great... or should be. The idea is wonderful. Steampunk Baroque! YAY! ALl my favorites in one movie, wonderful! They had all the ingredients to make a great movie. I could even have forgiven the fixing something that wasn't broke. (If you love THE story of three musketeers, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE. It doesn't follow the book. Much.)SO I blame the script writer. The dialogue is weak, the characterization is bad, people's motivations are incomprehensible, the script writer took multidimensional characters and made paperdolls of them.The costumes are horrible. So horrible that I find it hard to not get distracted from the story. Why does the king look like the king of SPAIN? Why does the cardinal wear an armor? And what's with that... robe of his? I mean, the costumer took the one and only horribly misleading painting ever by Henri Motte to base his costumes on! And why would the Duke of Buckingham kiss the French Cardinal's ring? HE WASN'T EVEN CATHOLIC! When Milady faints in one second and the next starts show fighting, I gave up. In the original story Milady was intelligent and sharp and quick, and could manipulate anyone. Richelieu might have been the villain, but he was wise. He too was sharp and intelligent, but he was wise. He didn't want power to have power, he wanted power because of France, AND THE THING IS THAT HE WAS THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED TO France.I was really waiting for a treat with Christoph Waltz as Richelieu, and I knew Milla Jovovich's Milady would have some fighting scenes, YAY! I love feisty girls like that! But... starting with one scheme and change to another the next second and... no. It doesn't work that way! YOU MADE HER HOTHEADED AND STUPID. And no amount of chess is enough to convey how intelligent she is. Stupid! The manuscript writer is stupid! STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!! So, no! No forgiveness for you for changing the story! The only reason why this movie gets 2 and not 1 is that the actors are great and the idea is great. Horses are great too. And some of the fighting scenes and things are OK too. It COULD have been good.

I will never understand the sick urge that Hollywood producers have, to twist the classic tales that everyone loved in their childhood into unrecognizable and nonsensical messes that are destined to be forgettable at best. So many millions squandered, so many work hours, only to result in something that looks so haphazard. Mediocre visual effects and visually pleasing settings (alas historically inaccurate) can not redeem the abysmal writing of the dialogues, the terribly developed and frankly annoying characters and the overall school- play quality of acting. Some rhetorical questions: Could they have chosen someone more insignificant as d'Artagnan? Is the purpose of Orlando Bloom's hairdo to hurt our eyes or terminate his career? Was the king of France a girl with mustache?Alternative title: "a book-lover's nightmare"