User reviews

Part 2 of the current film adaptation is by no means a bad film, thanks to the actors, budget and, of course, the literary source material. Nevertheless, it falls well short of its predecessor, not least because of the high expectations following the first film. What's missing this time? A certain freshness, the haunting presence of the protagonists, their actually indispensable interaction, memorable climaxes. Content now rules here, almost too much for the running time, instead of fun.

Eva Green gives an outstanding performance in her parade role as the femme fatale, this time making the important and correct decision that less is often more.

The Three Musketeers: Milady completes the first chapter of their adventures with another exciting story full of political intrigue and action. It comes so close to being wholly satisfying but just can't help itself so at the last minute it ends on another massive cliffhanger. With the promise of another instalment being so far away and not entirely guaranteed, it makes it harder to stomach.

François Civil, Vincent Cassel, Romain Duris, and Pio Marmaï remain a wonderful core four. The witty dialogue gives them plenty of opportunities to showcase their strong chemistry and it feels like they spend a lot more time together in this one, which is a huge bonus. Eva Green was and still is perfect casting. Her enthusiasm is so visible as she revels in the villainy whilst still bringing some nuance.

Martin Bourboulon's direction keeps the one takes for the majority of the action which gives all the swashbuckling a lot of energy without being hindered by obvious joins (again) and there's a generally epic feel thanks to the beautiful locations where the biggest dramatic moments take place. Guillame Roussel's score is suitably rousing with a winning commitment to making everything as serious as possible.

I can't say that I enjoyed this as much as the first outing for this new breed of musketeers, but it's still an enjoyable and authentic looking adaptation of these timeless and honourable Dumas characters. We know that "Constance" (Lyna Khoudri) has been kidnapped and that the enamoured "D'Artagnan" (François Civil) is determined to get her back - but how? Well the almost fatal attack on the king (Louis Garrel) has galvanised everyone - friend and foe, and the musketeers determine that they must get to the ringleader of that plot before it is eventually accomplished and the kingdom is plunged into chaotic warfare. Now everyone suspects the malevolent Cardinal Richelieu (Eric Ruf) but surely it's not in his interests to kill Louis XIII? The Queen (Vicky Krieps) and her not-so-secret English lover Buckingham (Jacob Fortune-Lloyd) might be in the mix, or maybe just a disgruntled nobleman? "D'Artagnan" is first with a clue after he inadvertently rescues "Milady" (Eva Green) from a prison (after she fell off a cliff!) armed with a secret, coded letter. What does it mean? Can it help find his love and save the kingdom? Meantime, we start to learn a little more about this enigmatic "MIlady" and of her relationship with "Athos" (Vincent Cassel) whilst his two pals "Aramis" (Romain Duris) and the affable "Porthos" (Pio Marmaï) do their bit for the story and the country too. It looks great - the settings, the costumes, the combat scenes all smack of effort having been spent on making the scenarios ring true. I'm still no great fan of Eva Green, but here she starts to exude just the tiniest hint of menace as the story builds to the conclusion of this search for love and traitors. It's a wee bit more earnest, this time around - there's less humour and I missed that. I don't mean laugh out loud stuff, but here we rarely see all the musketeers together; their camaraderie isn't so obvious. This is essentially Civil v Green and that doesn't always work so well. Still, it's a solid and quickly paced adventure story that I found passed two hours effortlessly.

Well.. Since watching the first installment I really looked forward to this. The first one was everything I could ask for from a classic swashbuckling adventure.

However, this left me with a kind of unsatisfying feeling but there were a lot of positives too.

The scenery and atmosphere and general is great. Everything I could ask for. And Eva Green.. What an actress she is.. I know she usually plays mysterious villains but still. She's just good.

In general I enjoyed the acting as well. Maybe not great from everyone but the characters were ok.

But then the plot and the climax.. I still don't know what was really going on and from what I've read I am not alone in that. I believe they changed a lot from the book as well which messed it up more than it should have (never read it but I will).

I will watch it again some day though to maybe get a better understanding and possibly after reading the book to at least know the core of the story a bit better.

Still watchable but could have been better.

"The Three Musketeers" by Alexandre Dumas comes to life in the cinematic adaptation, which, while deviating in some details from the book, manages to preserve the original work's essence. The story follows D'Artagnan and his loyal friends, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, in a captivating 17th-century setting. Political intrigues, thrilling duels, and secret romances intertwine as they battle against the cunning Cardinal Richelieu and the enigmatic Milady de Winter. Although poetic licenses result in more battles than in the book, the film successfully captures the spirit of adventure, action, and romance that has made this classic swashbuckling tale endure.

It's good to return to the big screen, connect again with the magic of the dark room and much better to do it with a film that captivates you from beginning to end.

The second part of the great project led by Martin Bourboulon is much more vibrant, fast-paced and entertaining, with a narrative rhythm that does not falter at any time, but does not leave plot gaps either. The dramatic arc of the characters is much more solid and clear, Vincent Cassel as always does not need many minutes to demonstrate his stage presence, François Civil finishes shaping a rising D'Artagnan, but who steals the screen every time he appears is Eva Green, who from start to finish makes a truly impeccable hero-villain game.

A real pleasure to enjoy an epic film project far from the great arms of Hollywood.

I love Eva she is amazing and sensual in this movie that i liked more than the. First one because she appears than the previous one and that's actually make the movie better only because of her and her beautiful voice and face, love that girl to be honest, overall very forgettable and kinda of a mess, I suppose there is going to be a third part my guys, and that's fine I guess let's wait two years for that and i hope Eva is in that movie too, she is the love of my life and i desire her, she is just fantastic actress and she knows it, she is the boss. Love her very much and i would do anything for her.

Starting exactly where 'The Three Musketeers: D'Artgnan' left off, D'Artagnan wakes up and is taken prisoner. Escaping he seeks out his beloved Constance but instead finds a tortured / imprisoned Milady de Winter who is up to no good. Meanwhile the other 3 musketeers head to La Rochelle where the king is determined to win a battle against the Protestants in response to his assassination attempt in the first film.

Not quite as stirring and exciting as the first film and as per the book, markedly darker. It is though still a great story packed full of excellent sword fighting set pieces and other scenes of derring do and fine turns from Francois Civil as D'Artagnan and Eva Green as the sneaky and dangerous Milady. Watch them as a double feature. A third film based on Dumas' '20 Years Later' is in the pipeline.

Once again a tremendous spectacle, served with a bunch of very fine actors ("la fine fleur" of French actors) in all their glory, who make most of the scenes of the movie a tasty delight to savour... In particular the highly charismatic Eva Green and François Civil, who both have this magnetic presence that makes you wanna follow each of their adventures (each of the moments they share are captivating)...

The staging and overall design of the movie is as majestically pleasing as in the First Part (both movies were shot at the same time) with very gorgeous framings and lightings (wonderfully mastered)... The action and stunts do the job (in spite of this recurring shaky camera), with a few cool bits (hats off to the final confrontation).

Of course the stakes -even if already pretty high at some point in the First Part- are even higher here... Numerous events in this Second Part mirror events recounted in the First Part ; the situation is pretty tight for the main players, and the whole -mysterious- intrigue gets thicker and tastier as it evolves... With Milady playing a pivotal role in everything ; even when she is not here, her shadow never is very far... But things, during the entire movie, don't really go as expected, twists after twists...

In the end, this two-parter story definitely is a pretty gem in the long history of French Cinema, because it shows the nice will to produce a pleasing cinematic piece, à la française ; but in a fashion that uses some of the welcome contempory/modern tools.

A fine and tasty adventure to watch, and potentially a Third Part to come (?)

Continuation of the European blockbuster, started in 2023 in the first part ¨Les trois mousquetaires: D'Artagnan¨, a brilliant and colorful French version based on Alexandre Dumas' classic novel . It's a nice rendition from the immortal novel with pretty budget and breathtaking scenarios which adapts the classic of 1844 cape and sword literature written by Alexandre Dumas, dealing with D'Artagnan the three Musketeers, they're rollicking adventurers , fighting to live and living to love . Full of adventures, romances, betrayals and conspiracies. It is a good visual spectacle but inferior to the previous one.

The picture contains rousing action , intrigue , romantic adventure , romance , treachery , mayhem and a lot of fence .The film vindicates and reinterprets the figure of Milady de Winter's spy. Eva Green declared regarding her role: ¨Milady is a feminist and ahead of her time, who does not care about social conventions or what people think about her. She is not, as one might believe, just another psychopath¨.

Again an intrepid young D'Artagnan along with three legendary Musketeers have to fight Milady of Winter and villainous Cardinal Richelieu. Lavish scenarios , spectacular action, court intrigue, exciting swordplay and recreating historical events such as the siege of La Rochelle against the Protestants. Last version based on Alexandre Dumas' classic yarn of intrigue at the 17th century French court . Entertaining and fun version based on the classic Dumas novel with spectacular swordplay in nifty style , this is a modern version of the classic Dumas novel set in 17th Century France . Alexandre Dumas's source for his novel was a book by 19th-century writer Courtils de Sandraz, which was purporting to be D'Artagnan's biography ; the Musketeers were actually real people, not fictional characters created by Dumas . Director Martin Bourboulon presents Dumas' exciting story of love and adventure , ¨The three musketeers¨ including a lot of sword-play, and overwhelming fights . For this French rendition is adapted in the greatest splendor , the complete romance , the historical characters, the full novel by Alexandre Dumas though including important changes . It is packed with comedy , derring-do , intrigue , a love story , action , drama and moving swordplay . An awesome casting and big-budgeted production shot in real locations make for a fairly amusement swashbuckler . This is the recent recounting of the Dumas's novel with a fine cast headed by handsome François Civil as Charles d'Artagnan, Vincent Cassel as Armand de Sillègue d'Athos d'Hauteville, Romain Duris as Aramis and Pio Marmaï . Stars hot-headed D'Artagnan in a brave role as a young and handsome soldier of fortune , a dashing , audacious lover and nimble athlete. Charles d'Artagnan and the three musketeers must defeat a beautiful double agent and her villainous employer from seizing the French throne and engulfing Europe in war. At the beginning of the movie, the map of Europe shows several states and kingdoms of that era. This delightful adaptation based on Alexandre Dumas classic novel deals with the youngster D'Artagnan is forced to join forces with Milady to save Constance, who was kidnapped before his eyes. But as war is declared and Athos, Porthos and Aramis have already joined the front, a secret from the past shatters old alliances. DÁrtagnan and his pals join forces in their objective to struggle against guards of Cardinal Richelieu and the astute Milady De Winter who is lovely as a jewel, deadly as a dagger the wickedest woman in all Christendom . Meanwhile, D'Artagnan has to save his gorgeous girlfriend , Constance, she is a golden-haired beauty entangled in a web of treachery and intrigue. Furthermore , there is twisted intrigues with participation de Luis XIII : Louis Garrel, Queen Anne of Austria : Vicky Krieps, dazzling as her gilded palace for her, men dared a thousand perils , and Duke of Buckingham, Jacob Fortune-Lloyd; and of course the nasty Richelieu: Eric Ruf , as evil as ever . The musketeers join forces for royal vengeance with the shout : ¨One for all and all for one¨. Then , the musketeers whose friendship has become a legend to stir the hearts of men and shouting their slogan set out to help the Queen . Straightforward as well as gallant D'Artagnan and the three musketeers scheme a plan to save Constance , clashing against a malicious Richelieu and his hoodlums.

Furthermore , a vein of humour is evident here , though sometimes falling flat . For this movie itself , though , energetic and frantic are the best adjectives you could think of to describe its attraction. Charming, attractive François Civil in the title role who performed his own stunts, as he bounds and leaps , fights , hits and run. Francois executes athletic feats , moving fencing and spectacular fights. François Civil performed 90% of his own stunts in the two films following an intense six-month preparation on fencing, sword-fighting and horseback riding. He is accompanied by a good cast as veterans as newcomer actors. Almost entirely shot on location in France. First part shot back to back with this sequel (2023) for a total shoot of 150 days that started on August 16, 2021 and wrapped on June 3, 2022. Out of the 150 days shooting these two films took, only one day was scheduled for filming in studio.

It contains adequate and colorful cinematography -although quite dark at times- by Nicolas Bolduc stunningly showed on the splendorous images being filmed in Paris and surroundings . Thrilling as well as evocative musical score by composer Guillaume Roussel. Glamorous production design is well reflected on the luxurious interiors, impressive sets and exteriors stunningly filmed .The motion picture was professionally realized by Martin Bourboulon . This cool filmmaker provided visual style , comedy , fencing , drama , clangorous action in equal proportions . Thi is first French film adaptation of Alexandre Dumas' novel The Three Musketeers since 1961, when the two-part saga (The 3 Musketeers (1961) and Vengeance of Milady (1961) directed by Bernard Borderie was released. Bertrand Tavernier's 1994 film The daughter of D'Artagnan (1994) was focused on D'Artagnan's daughter. Director Martin Bourboulon watched several films for inspiration during preparation, including Cyrano de Bergerac (1990), Queen Margot (1994), The Duellists(1977). Shot back to back with its sequel Three Musketeers: Milady (2023) for a total shoot of 150 days that started in 2021 and wrapped in 2022. Rating: 5.5/10.

Plenty of positives including an exceptional cast (with the exception of Constance), the cinematography was mostly good (a few scenes a little too dark) , most of the scenes were well paced and costumes looked authentic.

However, the story seemed a lot more disjointed than the first movie and it didnt seem like there was enough time for character building (maybe we get spoilt with the amount of time series have but with 3 movies it felt like more could have been achieved). The worst part however, was the sudden revelation of super female fighters able to compete if not better the supposed best male sword fighters in the country....

The story was frustrating enough that i feel the need to re read the book after 20 plus years as im sure i remember it being a lot more coherent than this movie !

I love a good knights movie and I was really pleased with the first part of this trilogy, (which I saw a year ago), however this sequel was a bit underwhelming compared to the first part.

The bad: many new characters were introduced in this second part and these new characters took away much of the screentime from the 3 musketeers. Besides that disappointing fact, the build up of the story was less tightknit and less riveting and fun compared to the first part. I blame the writer...

Beware: better watch the first part closely before watching this sequel, because I had some troubles remembering who was who and what had happened beforehand.

The good: it's still worth a watch though, because of the great actors, the great photography and the passionate story, however disjointed in some moments.

Just a solid knights movie, recommended for the fans of this genre.

It starts with flashbacks from "D'Artagnan". For the first three or four minutes they remind us of the intrigue leading up to the assassination attempt on Louis Troisième and then D'Artagnan is knocked unconscious and captured by agents of the king's brother.

The version supplied to me did not have an option for subtitles in any language, but the dialogue was understandable. (My son and I spent a few weeks in France over the summer so we dusted off the French quite a bit.) Also, I have read Dumas' wonderful "Les Trois Mousquetaires" several times so I know the storyline.

As with "D'Artignan", "Milady" took some liberties and did not follow the novel strictly, but the overall plot was the same.

One incongruent moment happened early in the film after D'Artagnan escapes by holding a knife to the throat of the Comte de Chalais, Gaston's henchman. He then asks to be taken to Constance, but when he arrives it is Milady de Winter. He gives her to keys to free herself and they jump into a moat and swim to freedom. Shortly thereafter she tries to seduce him, but the is wearing a very low-cut corset. This would have allowed D'Artagnan to see the fleur branded onto her shoulder. I would think that the producers should have noticed this glaring inconsistency.

In a subsequent tryst with D'Artagnan she again leaves her shoulder exposed but this time he notices the mark and immediately reports it to Athos.

I found it interesting that Louis calls his wife "vous" but his brother, Gaston, "tu". I cannot remember if it was so in the novel.

Just as in D'Artagnan, neither Planchet, Grimaud, Mousqueton, nor Bazin appear in the film. They were major players in Dumas' novel and Planchet saves the day more than once, but they were not even a footnote in this film adaptation.

On the other hand, when D'Artagnan reveals to Captain de Treville that the Compte de Chalais was behind the rebellion, the former's frustration with Treville was faithful to the book.

It had fewer moments of drunken revelry and less comic relief than "D'Artagnan" but the acting was superb. Including by those who played the part of Protestant rebels in the citadel of La Rochelle. And the actor who plays Gaston is as cold as he could possibly be.

I still have trouble with the ages of the actors. In the novel Athos was the oldest of the lot, at 27 or so. Here, none of them appear to be under 27 and Athos looks like he's old enough for medicare.

Overall, the swashbuckling adventures of the musketeers was enjoyable, as was the intrigue. Recommended to those who can put aside their temptation to judge it against the novel.

The ending definitely suggests a sequel.

If you've never read the book you may find this movie somewhat enjoyable.

But if you love the book as much as I do, you will absolutely hate this so called 'adaptation'.

They made a total mess out of the plot. It's so bad I have no words. Multiple completely made up characters and plot lines.

So little of the actual story is in this film that it makes no sense to list what they changed, it would be easier to list what they actually kept from the book.

Basically- they took the title and the names of the characters.

It truly is a pity. The production had a decent budget. The sets are great, the cinematography is good. Some of the costumes are nice. And that's pretty much all the positives. The script is simply ridiculous. The writers must have thought they are better than Dumas. SMH.

1. Eva Green shines as the most ambiguous and spellbinding Milady to ever grace the big screen. She is also one of the most realistically physical and battle-hardened. This alone makes this movie worth viewing and ideally on a big screen. It's a tour de force by an actress born for this role.

2. The stakes are higher than ever thanks to the incoming climax of the 8 civil wars of religions which has been plaguing the Kingdom of France for 55 years in the final Huguenot Rebellions whose leaders are now entrenched in their bastion of La Rochelle and awaiting reinforcements from the wannabe-invading English ships lead by the Duke of Buckingham...War is afoot!

3. If Athos was not tortured enough as it is, his brother Benjamin De La Fere is inside La Rochelle fighting for the opposite protestant camp... PS: This departure from the book is actually historically accurate except it was Aramis and Porthos who were of Protestant descent like many a minor noble in Bearn and Gascony at this strifeful time. We can thank Jeanne d'Albret, Queen of Navarre for that!...

4. Meanwhile the true plotters and traitors who conspired to kill the King are still unknown. Is Richelieu the man we think he is (PS: we can thank Dumas for that myth-making)? Can Chalais the scheming leader of the Catholic League be trusted? Is Gaston, the King's brother, just an over-eager warhawk or a sandbox plotter?

5. D'Artagnan's sweetheart Constance Bonacieux and himself are both, separately, captured whilst all the finest swords in the kingdom are converging towards the unassailable Atlantic port city well protected in her strait to put down this republican rebellion once and for all. The siege of La Rochelle lasted a year but an infamous turning point in the Rochelais cause was when a nearby Ile de Ré citadel was taken and its cannons turned towards the incoming British navy and we will see how...

6. Despite the pathos and warring everywhere, expect some of the now internationally known Musketeer joviality to pop up thanks to some key characters we've known to love: the stutter-beater king Louis XIII, mountain of a man Porthos sidekicking by his brother in arm Aramis embroiled in his family affairs taking a dishonourable turn... What does a young nobleman do when his family honour is at stake, despite having already joined the front during a civil war? What does his notoriously rapacious and title-hungry friend do when he sees an opportunity to gain status and funds whilst giving a helping hand?

7. Athos and Milady's secret is revealed and it changes everything. The book fans and purists' jaws will drop to the floor. This is a Dumasian twist and a half!

8. The rapier fights are even bigger and better than in Part 1. But it's now war time my dears and thus MUSKETS and pistols finally make a grandiose appearance! We also get to see some nice glimpses of Renaissance-style coded letters and ciphers being passed around!

9. In terms of sexual manipulation, the tables are turned between D'Artagnan and Milady compared to the books. Make of that what you will. This also means she now has no particular hatred towards him and his beloved in this version (maybe it would not hurt to needle her nemesis Athos by proxy through our dear D'Arty but she seems to prefer minutely prepared revenge served cold). Yet she needs to go forward at all costs and they are in the way...Maybe even worse for the doomed lovebirds?...

10. Bonacieux is not your typical ingenue easily fooled and beguiled anymore but a goodie two shoes trying to keep her guilty conscience virtuous. Will she listen to her head or her heart?... You will not see two women catfight in this movie like in the Dick Lester one.

11. The ending is very Miladian. It will pierce your heart without remorse and run away after her deed is done. The only way for it to not be sadistic like her is if we get a part 3...

Enjoy the rollercoaster ride! ;-)

An adventure, a historical drama. A direct continuation of the first film called "The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan", a review of which has already been made in the premiere month of the release of this movie on the wide screen in Russia. The second part was also planned to be rented in our great and vast, but did not take place, although the author of this review was extremely interested in watching the second part, where all the goodies were planned. And now, after watching, the author of the review comes to the conclusion - well, it's good that the second part was not released in Russia, because it would be extremely insulting to pay money for such a thing (even two hundred rubles). The second part was even more disappointing than the first. And here's a brief opinion for you - A shoddy conclusion to a Dumas-based dilogy. Despite the negative emotions after watching, the author of this review (in view of fairness) will tell you not only about the disadvantages (which are enough here), but also about the few advantages (which were found). This should conclude such an important introduction, and proceed to the analysis.

So, the pros: 1. The atmosphere - as in the first part, it is good. France is on the verge of a new religious war. The kingdom is bursting at the seams, if the king and all patriotic forces do not restore order in the country and solve the problem with the Huguenots (first of all, by taking their main stronghold - the fortress and port of La Rochelle, and secondly by defeating the Huguenot movement), then France is threatened by the continuation of religious wars. This is being closely watched by England (represented by its first minister, the Duke of Buckingham), which is ready to intervene on the side of the Huguenots at any moment, which threatens a new hundred years' war between England and France. There are conspiracies everywhere, it is unclear who is a friend and who is an enemy, families are divided along religious lines. And four brave Musketeers live and serve in this mess. Guillaume Roussel's music (as in the first part) works great for the atmosphere. Not to mention the excellent scenery (obviously filmed in France). It is impossible to blame the creators for this.

2. Fights and battles - their staging pleases the eye, it is a pity that there is little blood, and they fence according to the rules of the nineteenth century (which of course was not the case in the first half of the seventeenth century). There is also a dynamic here, although no enchanting tricks have been noticed. Some episodes of the siege of La Rochelle pleased (although the arrival of the British squadron right under the walls of La Rochelle is a pure myth, since the British fought on the island of Re, where they were beaten by the French, after which they retreated, they did not reach La Rochelle). There are more similar scenes in this part, so the picture does not look as boring as the first one.

So, the cons: 1. The script - as in the first part, it is bad, only here everything became even worse, since only the names of the characters and a certain line of confrontation between the Musketeers and Richelieu remained from the book source of Alexandre Dumas, but here everything became even worse, because the creators decided to mix the real and extremely interesting history of France, namely the end of the religious warriors (which have plagued France for more than a century, preventing it from living and developing in peace) and the book story of Dumas - the result was deplorable. And the hint of a sequel in the finale is a spit in the soul of fans of the book. In general, the existence of this dilogy is a mockery of them, because so many book characters have been removed, new and alien ones have been introduced. Yes, the creators have done a lot of things.

2. Problems with logic - the scriptwriters have gone so far aside that they have formed a whole bunch of logical holes where the script just sucks in. For example, fatal (especially at that time with that level of medicine) wounds that the characters safely withstand (like the Gascon from the beginning of the first part, who was hit in the heart, and then also in the side), guards and servants do not pay attention to the fact that their commanders or masters want to kill, the strange behavior of Athos when meeting My Lady. Yes, there are a lot of things here. It doesn't make sense to list everything, otherwise you can get stuck for a long time.

3. Costumes - almost everyone here walks like bums. Only Cardinal Richelieu, My Lady, Louis the Thirteenth and Queen Anne are not homeless. Neither the Musketeers nor the Cardinal's guards wear branded cloaks (which at that time were, like the "dapper" outfits that the Musketeers were required to wear, since they are the elite of the royal army), everyone wears a durugue, which was picked up from homeless people on the Paris pavement. Only Musketeers wear hats with huge parrot feathers (which was rare in those days, France was not yet conducting widespread colonization of new lands in the rest of the world). It looks extremely ridiculous.

4. The important Negro - yes, the old song is about the main thing. More negroes, more subpoena. I remember in the previous picture of this director called "Eiffel" there were no Negroes and colored people in general (for this the author of this review praised the director), and so the director decided to "correct himself" by adding a Negro, and not a simple Negro, but the "Prynets" from far Africa. I don't care that this character had a historical prototype (he lived sixty years before the events described), it's just that the fact itself is confusing - well, France did not lead a colonial policy yet, she was still dealing with the Huguenots at home, she was not up to colonization yet. Apparently, the creators of this dilogy decided to play along with the tolerant American public by introducing an important Negro into the script. This was not the case in the first part (because of this Negro, the final score decreased).

5. The Siege of La Rochelle - in the first part, we were teased that the siege would be large-scale and extremely important in the script, many viewers were waiting for it. The author of this review was already anticipating an excellent production, the battle for the island of Re, the battles in the bastions between the Huguenot troops and the army of the King of France, the construction of a dam, the intense attacks of the Huguenots from the fortress, the negotiations of the Huguenots with the Duke of Buckingham, the feat of two Frenchmen from the fort on the island of Re, and so on. And as a result, the siege is the backdrop for the scenario. They will show a couple of forts, the English fleet, the walls of La Rochelle themselves, and a diagram with figures of soldiers and cannons, and a sabotage of a detachment of the royal army. No one remembers about the bastion of Saint-Gervais. It's a shame, comrades, it's a shame to the extreme.

6. Acting - Constance was made a complete fool (although she was not one in the book), Richelieu is unclear what kind, and not a villain, but not a hero (in the book his image tends more to villainy, but in the name of France), My Lady (Eva Green, that says it all, she was my favorite an actress, but the role of Milady is not for her, she does not shine with guile here), Musketeers (faded shadows of book images, and actors play at random, of all only the Gascon tries and Athos, but he generally behaves strangely). The others here don't try at all. It hurts to look at this boredom.

The author of this review, as a person who read the book, was hurt to watch how French filmmakers ruined the great adventure novel by Dumas, his compatriot, by the way. Thank God, both parts of the dilogy failed miserably at the box office, and that's where they go. They perverted Dumas as much as possible. Shame and condemnation of this dilogy and all those who starred in it. The author of this review does not recommend this picture for viewing.

As for the whole dilogy, to watch or not, it is better to refrain, there are many paintings that are worthy of viewing, this dilogy is not one of them. If the first part was a dull gray, then the second was a complete disappointment.

Rating 4 out of 10!

I had really looked forward to seeing a new interpretation of the classic story, but unfortunately, the story is inconsistent and you really don't connect with the characters and their motives.

The filming is good, but the "band of brothers" set in 16th century with a moderne touch is lost i my opinion. MyLady, Richelieu, the king, what are their motives??? What binds the 4 Musketeers together?

It seems like the writers have been guided more by how can we change this character, not for supporting a good story, but solely of ticking some boxes i.e. MyLady is not opportunistic, she is a victim, the king is not naive, but seeks peace, all want war etc..

Please just tell a good story!!!

The Three Musketeers: Milady: As dark and gritty as the first film. If anything the fight scenes are even more exciting, hand to hand individual fights and battle scenes. Plenty of conspiracy, betrayal and back stabbing. Eva Green shines as Milady, a special forces style agent of Cardinal Richelieu (Eric Ruf). Dastardly as both are though more depth is given to their characterisation and motives. Richelieu really is a Gray Eminence. D'Artagnan (François Civil) and Athos (Vincent Cassel) both perform great acts of derring_do but also face heartbreak. A great adventure! Directed by Martin Bourboulon, Screenplay by Matthieu Delaporte and Alexandre de La Patellière. 8/10.

The new French adaptation of The Three Musketeers is disappointingly soulless. The characters are given little to no time to develop, and the plot is riddled with strange holes. The film's attempt at a modern, gritty atmosphere feels out of place, and the movies pale in comparison to Lester's classic masterpieces. Even the light-hearted BBC series and the campy airship film version were more enjoyable.

Even after being disappointed by some early production photos (particularly the costuming), I was hoping that Eva Green might save the movies. However, the director failed to draw out much more from her than an evil grin and the occasional leer (the writing didn't really give her a chance to shine).

There were a few clever plot changes that had the potential to make the movie different from earlier interpretations, but the lack of clear plot development undermined them. It seemed as though some scenes were either left unfilmed or were cut from the final version, which disrupted the overall flow of the story.

The film's biggest flaw, however, is its lack of character development. The core trio (or quartet) of musketeers never get the chance to interact in a way that shows how and why they are such close friends. Additionally, they never seem to have the time to clean up or behave like the young nobles they are supposed to be (or dress like gentlemen, for that matter).

I write this is 2023 and I can assure the reader that this was not a good year for cinema. Actually, it's been years that cinema has been pretty much dead. Politics, general lack of respect with source material, studios' unwillingness to invest in mid-range films, poor production values, poor acting, poor scripting, you name it, are all part of the problem.

The Three Musketeers story has been adapted to cinema many times, but this is the first time it seems to take itself seriously. This was the first time I saw a cinema musketeer hold actual muskets. The story is solid, the acting is top-notch, the bad guys are believeable. Lady Winter is so good, in fact, that before long you start rooting for her!

The costumes look authentic enough, the fighting scenes are not 100% believable, but they are pretty decent, there's a lot of character building around Athos, the relationship between D'Artagnan and Constance, even King Louis XIII has more depth than most characters from Marvel.

These musketeers dress like musketeers, and they display signs of true friendship and comradery, pulling each other's legs, knowing each other's quirks, having adult dialogues and things like that.

The story does not dwell in the stereotypical bad vs good kind of thing and doesn't try to push a message to the viewer. It's all grey areas, each character has an agenda and reasons to do what they do.

And on top of all that: it's all in French. How it's supposed to be.

Even though it's not the book, it's not a strict interpretation of it, these two films are very good. A breath of fresh air and true filmmanship.

If you like the 3 musketeers, or just any good old adventure film, don't miss this one!

Script-wise it's a mise en abyme within other mises en abyme, a narratological cat-and-mouse game by Dumas and history fans for other fans! If only it was longer than 1h55 which imposes the action to go at breakneck speed with way too many ellipses and shortcuts undermining the deployment of emotions aroused by the great pieces of bravery this script went for. It also probably makes a lot of less Dumas-obsessed viewers miss the inventiveness and playfulness of this beautifully crafted story which seems a bit rushed or messy without the 30 extra minutes this movie would have needed to land all its zingers properly with more pauses and contextualization... Even if we still have a great time and admire the effort, it makes the whole final part (about 20 minutes) of the movie feel a bit too much like a telefilm instead of an adventure epic because it goes forward in all directions like a headless chicken final flourish where they basically throw the kitchen sink at us without any pauses and hope we can take it. With less great actors it would have definitely crossed the line but because they're all awesome, we still play along with the preposterous film editing and silly pacing. There better be a director's cut. Bourboulon you owe us one.

Nonetheless the pleasure is fourfold - read till the end because the last one is the clincher. Basically Eva Green's impersonation is absolute box office and warrants the ticket alone.

First, they mischievously mix all the stories of several key characters together and into new characters who are Dumas universe "mutants" gathering several books or historical characters into one (fictitious Huguenot rebel Saint Blancard mixed with La Rochelle mayor Jean Guiton saying his famous tirade about "piercing his heart if he cannot defend the city", here enters black musketeer Aniaba the Assinian prince, absent Felton now rubs off on Bonacieux...). In addition to being an ingenious way of both honouring the overly dense source material subtly and simplifying it to make it fit in a high-octane 2 parter film, it's a super enjoyable "aha moment" when the knowing spectator finally clocks what they have done and the new implications for the storylines. This way, they found the most beautiful motivation to justify Milady's rage for survival and revenge in a little J. And it's a new character who is left in a convent and not Miss Bonacieux amongst other twists and turns... but I won't say more.

Secondly, they recontextualise the story in true historical events that Dumas skimmed over which gives the adventures much more life-and-death and changing-the-course-of-History weight and the opportunity for great action sequences i.e the siege of La Rochelle and marshal Schomberg and Toiras's taking of the citadel on the islet of Ré (Saint-Martin-en-Ré) to boot Buckingham and his fleet away from the Huguenot bastion and the French coasts...They are now impersonated by Treville and Chalais and their troops in an impressive 17th century Assault on Alcatraz-type special forces nightly commando mission sequence where double and triple crossing agents will appear in quick successions!

Thirdly, it inventively takes a historically accurate counterpoint to Dumas' version which may confuse or delight international audiences in rehabilitating Richelieu and Louis XIII and highlighting the true historical traitors and plotters..It also plays on that Dumas-created myth of the corrupt power-hungry Richelieu to hold our attention until the end because he's no angel nonetheless... It also uses Porthos and Aramis and Louis Garrel's still impressive portrayal of the king as subtle comic reliefs which is a delight!

Finally, as the title suggests, it really does a narrative semi-reversal on Milady and even if we don't see the action fully from her point of view as one may have expected, her presence and dazzlingly incandescent portrayal by Eva Green makes her character and her spell-binding influence ever-present even when she is not lighting up the screen directly. Both thanks to portrayal and narrative changes (a backstory and new circumstances of encounters with her antagonists), Milady has never been more of an ambiguous survivor force of nature who is deeply obsessed with revenge and openly diabolical for sure but with motivations almost anyone on this planet can partly understand...She does manipulate perpetually, her audience, her circumstances, her charms but we can see through cracks that it is more because of being self-serving and forced to resilience than deeply held machiavellism or megalomania...Or is it? Even if all of the above does not appeal, it's worth paying the ticket price just to see one if not the very best ever portrayal of Milady de Winter on the big screen. She puts shivers down the spine every time she appears and in a particular emotional climax scene she can even draw tears, just before a sudden laceration of our feelings questioning if we were wickedly played or just opportunistic collateral damages she does not have the luxury to care about in her obsession to reach her goal despite the absence of malice...Maybe a bit of both.

The ending is very Miladian, as sadistic as a last dagger thrown in our direction before fleeing with her precious bounty but not without making sure we know who's signed the crime. Is it a cliffhanger? I bloody hope so. Bring on Part 3 and 4 and even 5 if needs be!