The Three Musketeers - Part I: D'Artagnan (2023) User Reviews

Why Gild the Lily?

[dinnycharwell · 6/10 · 4 May 2023]

I have been a fan of Alexandre Dumas since childhood and know his musketeer trilogy almost by heart. Naturally, I have been looking forward to the new French (!) screen version of the first book for the last several months, especially as this winter I also watched (and enjoyed) the BBC TV series The Musketeers for the first time and was curious how the two will compare. Otherwise, my ideal screen version is the Russian (Soviet) TV film of 1979, as, despite its general naiveté it captured the spirit of the book: youthful friendships, unconditional loyalty, boundless belief in one's strength, humour and fearlessness. But I am always open to new interpretations of the material.

Unfortunately, the new French movie proved to be disappointing for me. Yes, one should give credit where it's due: the iconic locations such as the Louvre, Fontainebleau, Les Invalides, Chantilly will make the heart of any Dumas' fan melt, especially after many low-budget substitutions we saw in other productions. The costumes also deserve nothing but praise: the luxury, the ornaments, multiple layers, abundance of the smallest details, the worn-off effect - even an untrained eye can see how much hard work and skill went into these. The masquerade ball at Duke Buckingham's palace is where this work culminates: I would be ready to rewatch the film just to be able to once again admire the Duke and Milady's costumes as well as those of other guests.

And yet, despite all of this splendour, the movie seems to have completely missed the spirit of the book. It happens, however, not because the filmmakers preferred form over substance, but because the script writers happened to be too smart for their own good. Whether to demonstrate their creative potential or to make the movie more exciting for those who remember the source material, they started to gild the lily. As a result, in addition to the original diamonds adventure the film follows an even more complicated plot line: a Protestant conspiracy against the King. Both arcs are filled with insignificant scenes built in in order to keep the viewer entertained (for example, Athos' attempt to frighten d'Artagnan in the woods). As a consequence, the screen time of all key figures is spread thin between many different events, and they barely have time to say and do things required to pack all the plot milestones into the allotted film length, while their characters and relationship to one another remains un(der)developed. Unfortunately, the musketeers themselves are the first to fall victim to this problem. The friendship and true affection binding four very different people, each with a distinct persona of his own, are the cornerstones of the novel. And yet in the movie we hardly see them together at all: multiple events demand that the group splits between different plot lines in order to tick all the plot boxes. Neither do they get a chance to express themselves properly and demonstrate their signature traits we know from the books: Athos' aristocratic attitudes, d'Artagnan's cleverness and shrewdness, Porthos' good nature & vanity, Aramis' finesse and piety. Coupled with the casting choices that made the characters so much older than their prototypes, it makes it even more difficult for the viewer to believe in their friendship, as older people rarely bond as closely as the musketeers did in the novel.

Supporting characters find themselves in a similar situation: the omnipotent Cardinal Richelieu only shows up in a few scenes, and his true goals remain unknown. It is never explained why he is an enemy to the Queen: neither unrequited romantic feelings nor political agenda are mentioned (obviously disgracing the Queen is not the only way to start a war with England, if we assume that this is his ultimate goal). Louis XIII is simply badly written, what a waste of Louis Garrel's acting talent: his character doesn't come off as either comical or tragic or as having much intelligence. Vicky Krieps as the Queen is more lucky as she is given at least two dramatic scenes in which to shine and be remembered. Eva Green as Milady is good, but not surprising, for the actress has been playing similar roles for many years. I was somewhat perplexed by the story of her relationship with Athos (as far as it was touched upon in the first installment) being largely borrowed from BBC's The Musketeers, including the role Athos' brother plays in identifying her as a criminal.

As I said in the beginning, I think that the lack of character development is a result of the overloaded script and not due to subpar acting. Yes, the film does surprise even those well familiar with the book, but it comes at a very big expense, as none of the characters resonates with the viewer emotionally. One hopes that they will make a better job of it in the second installment to be released in December. In the meantime, given the sumptuous locations and wonderful costumes and the benefit of doubt, I'll give the film 6 starts out of 10.

A bit of a let down

[dowanhill · 6/10 · 31 July 2023]

A disappointing movie. Like some others here, I was looking forward to a film which finally does justice to the source material - one of the greatest swashbuckling tales of all time. This, alas, doesn't. There are some very good things. The feel is very authentic. Some of the set pieces eg. The Buckingham ball, the marriage of the King's brother, are stunning. Some of France's best acting talent is on display although I think Cassel and Duris are miscast. They don't do it for me. Matters aren't helped by some of the worst subtitles I've ever seen. Really bad. In summary, worth a watch but nowhere near as exciting as it should have been. It seems we have another part to come. Perhaps they'll hit their stride in that one.

A classic revisited

[AvionPrince16 · 7/10 · 5 April 2023]

I need to say before to start the review that i didnt read the book. So i cant really compare both of them. To be honest, i enjoyed it. From what i hear from the director of the movie they took the story, the dialogues as it was in the book but added some stuff and some story that it wasnt in the book. I appreciated it because i still think that if the movie was like the book it will be really boring and uninteresting to see the same thing and add some interest to see it. I enjoyed to see Eva Green, Louis Garrel and Vincent Cassel that i find the performance quite different and interesting to be honest. We see them in other ways that we were used to see them. I enjoyed the story: it have some revelation, surprises, dramatic, love, comedy moments that i really enjoyed and find it interesting to see. It was the part 1 and the end let us want to know what will happen next: about D'Artagnan? Constance(what she saw? And who she saw that we couldnt see?). The fights sequences was quite interesting and the long sequences that we have without a cut reinforced the immersion to live in real time what the characters go trough. I find Eva Green beautiful to be honest and was pretty sensual and good looking on screen. Im waiting for part 2 to see more and im pretty impatient to see that soon.

Takes some liberties, but not too far from the original story

[angus_km · 7/10 · 10 November 2023]

I just finished the film. Perhaps I should say, "Je viens de regarder le film" but I think I'll write this review for an anglophone audience. There may be a version with English subtitles but the one I watched did not have that option. I had to pause and listen again a few times, but the dialogue is generally not too hard to follow if your French is not too rusty.

For purists, it may be a disappointment, but for me it was a delight. The film was not exactly faithful to the original story by Alexandre Dumas, although overall it followed the same trajectory. For example, when Athos told the story of his wife to D'Artagnan, they were not drunk and sprawled across a table at an inn, but in the forest where Athos had just mocked D'Artagnan with a bit of friendly swordplay. Also, D'Artagnan was buried alive in the original story, but he was in a coffin and it was Athos who dug him out of the ground. In this film he dug himself out of an open-pit grave coughing and wheezing.

D'Artagnan's letter of introduction to M. De Tréville from his father was particularly annoying. An important part of the story was that it was in his doublet when it was stolen in Meung.

Also, where were Grimaud, Bazin, Mousqueton, and Planchet? They figured large in the original story, but weren't even a footnote in the film.

But the introduction of D'Artagnan to the trio was perfectly faithful to the original, and delightfully amusing. Within an hour of his arrival in Paris, D'Artagnan had managed to rile Athos, Porthos, and Aramis and he had agreed to fight them in duels, one after the other. He paid his rent four weeks in advance (4 livres) "au cas où." The humor was morbid, dry, and subtle, and I think it was faithful to the description by Dumas.

The actors chosen for the parts represented interesting choices. Porthos was not as portly as he should have been, in my mind, nor Athos as taciturn, nor Aramis as refined and beautiful, nor Richelieu as commanding. And none of them had particularly long hair (except for Athos before they cut it in anticipation of slicing through his neck.) Moreover, the actors portraying the mousquetaires were all a bit long in the tooth.

Still, after a bit it all came together with credible performances. I'm not very familiar with French actors, but the actors in this film all carried their characters brilliantly. (Ils ont crevé l'écran, as the French say. They "crushed" it.) The actress chosen for Constance Bonacieux was perfect. She was charming and pretty and young, but not beautiful or refined, just as Dumas painstakingly described her in the book.

However, it was jarring was when Constance was stitching the wound of D'Artagnan and she said something like "Quelques centimètres" meaning that it was lucky the shot wasn't just a bit to the left. But anything set in that period would have used "puces" (inches) and "pieds" (feet). To be sure, the French got so upset with the clergy and the nobility that they changed the names of the months of the year, the days of the week, the units of measurement, and the position of the head relative to the shoulders of 17 thousand aristocrats, but that wouldn't happen till 165 years after this story was set. (Would be interesting to see if, in the versions subtitled in English, the translation given was "a few inches to the left". I know they often use different units in translations meant for US consumption. Pounds, miles, etc.)

I really appreciated it when the king said, near the end, "Messieurs, voici les fameux trois mousquetaires, qui sont désormais quatre" (or something like that), even though it wasn't in the book. The complete lack of political correctness was refreshing as well. If he had said "mesdames et messieurs..." it would have lacked historical authenticity.

The fighting scenes were particularly stunning. There was plenty of violence and blood, just as in the novel, and the réalisateur chose to go with that quirky NYPD Blue-style camera angle, which I think gave it a gritty reality often missing from films set in the early 17th century. Combatants in close quarters do not have a drone's-eye view, and this is reflected in scenes of more recent battles (e.g., Thin Red Line). It was refreshing to see that treatment in a depiction of more ancient battles.

The locations were real, or so it seemed. The white cliffs of Dover are hard to simulate, and the château de Vincennes is probably also hard to replicate. I'd guess that all the places were filmed in situ.

Overall I can recommend it to--well, I'm going to borrow a Spanish word here because we don't have this one in English (nor, as far as I know, in French)--to aficionados of Les Trois Mousquetaires. Just keep an open mind regarding the small details, which will be different from the book.

Note that this film corresponds to Tome I of Les Trois Mousquetaires, roughly the first 30 chapters. Hopefully they'll make sequel. That was hinted after the credits with a small "à suivre" teaser featuring Milady and le Cardinal Richelieu in which she referenced "les mousquetaires".

For those who have not recently read the book and who might want to reference it, The Gutenberg Project has several versions in its excellent and free collection.

European cinema strikes back

[xnicofingerx · 7/10 · 11 October 2023]

Cloak and dagger films are certainly not the hottest trend at the moment, in fact they haven't been for ages. But that doesn't mean that the genre is unappealing, and certainly not this high-quality production. A high budget, an appropriately fantastic set, an authentic look, charismatic actors in the mood to play, a brisk production, likeable or much-hated stereotypes, humour in the right place - all the ingredients are properly mixed here. The interpretation of the novel is very independent, which is certainly the right approach given the abundance of film adaptations already available. And it is European cinema! So support and watch it all, part 2 will follow soon.

Brilliant and colorful French version based on Alexandre Dumas' classic novel

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 23 September 2023]

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 and exciting swordplay . 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 starts with the youngster D'Artagnan who arrives in Paris to find Mister Treville , chief of Musketeers. But he meets with three two-fisted Musketeers , rollicking adventurers , fighting to live and living to love . DÁrtagnan to be aware they are Musketeers and is invited to unite them 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 falls in love with a gorgeous young , Constance, she is a golden-haired beauty entangled in a web of treachery and intrigue. Furthermore , there is developed an intrigue between 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 her , clashing against a malicious Richelieu .

It's a nice rendition from the immortal novel with pretty budget and breathtaking scenarios. The picture contains rousing action , intrigue , romantic adventure , romance , treachery , mayhem and a lot of fence . Amusing swashbuckling with lavish production , glamorous gowns and luxurious sets . 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. He is accompanied by a good cast as veterans as newcomers.

It contains adequate and colorful cinematography 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 . 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.

This classy story is subsequently remade on several versions: the MGM classic version in musical style by George Sidney with Gene Kelly , Paul Lukas , Gig Young , Vincent Price , Frank Morgan and Lana Turner as Milady . The 3 Musketeers (1961) directed by Bernard Borderie and Vengeance of Milady (1961) with Gérard Barray and Mylene Demongeot . Bertrand Tavernier's 1994 film D'Artagnan's daughter with Sophie Marceau, Philippe Noiret . 1973 amusing version by Richard Lester with Michael York, Oliver Reed, Raquel Welch, Faye Dunaway, Christopher Lee, Frank Finlay. 1993 modern adaptation by Stephen Herek with Charlie Sheen , Kiefer Sutherland, Oliver Platt and Chris O'Donnell. 2001 rendition by Peter Hyams with Justin Chambers, Mena Suvari and Tim Roth. The three musketeers (2011) by Paul Anderson with Matthew Macfadyen, Milla Jovovich, Christian Oliver, Luke Evans, Ray Stevenson, Til Schweiger, Orlando Bloom. ¨Les trois mousquetaires: D'Artagnan¨ is an outstanding and entertaining adaptation of the famous novel that will appeal to the costumer genre buffs and it results to be acceptable adaptation with big budget based on the vintage tale.

The Fourth Musketeer!

[chand-suhas · 6/10 · 23 November 2023]

The story revolves around D'Artagnan who joins the Musketeers of the Guard and shows enough bravery when he clashes with the three musketeers - Athos, Porthos and Aramis, who take him under their wing. When Athos is falsely accused of murder, the other trio ensure to save Athos and time, while unraveling the larger conspiracy to harm the King and the Queen as well as instigating wide unrest planned by the baddie Milady and others. How D'Artagnan and three musketeers become a big hurdle to Milady and will they be able to save their King on time forms rest of the story, building up for a sequel.

Straight up, this was definitely a good watch and even if the action set pieces mostly with the sword didn't stand out but the story as well as the characters instantly connects. To simply put, the production is top notch. Be with the setting and the costumes, the era is set solidly and the director wastes no time in kickstarting with the action right from the introduction scene of D'Artagnan. It kept throwing enough entertaining scenes throughout, made memorable by the actor especially the multiple duel scene with the trio or even the flirting between the main lead and Constance. It definitely was an easy watch and to keep more of Eva Green to the sequel alone is worth waiting for it.

Does the good outweight the bad this time around?

[MSusimetsa · 6/10 · 4 January 2024]

This adaptation of the classic tale is yet again conflicted as it comes to the good that it brings and the bad that arrives with it. Thus far, I hold the 1970's version by Lester as a pinnacle in The Three Musketeers adaptations, and - unfortunately - this latest attempt does not threaten its throne.

The negatives included the dark-toned costumes and the overall gritty colour scheme of the entire movie. The King's Musketeers, historically consisting of nobility, seemed more like a group of mercenaries who had crawled to work through muddy ditches. And even the richer nobility seemed to prefer dark colours, which is just silly when you consider that bright colours and clean clothes were the main indicators of wealth at the time.

Another downside relates to the relationships between the characters: overall, they were mostly taken for granted, assuming that viewers already knew that the three musketeers were close friends, so there was not much need to show it. There are no scenes showing the chemistry between the three musketeers to make them actually feel like friends. Similarly, d'Artagnan's relationship with Constance felt superficial at best - there was no apparent chemistry between the actors.

There also seemed to be little left of the musketeers' honour: in an early fight with the cardinal's men, one of the musketeers commits a clear murder.

On the positive side, the film showed some daring in slightly reinventing the story - and managed to do it with a fair bit of respect for history: the relationship between the king and his brother was as problematic as it should be, and the conflict between Catholics and Protestants received more visibility than in previous iterations, and it was even part of the plot. These elements lead to new plot twists and elements, but do not (IMHO) take it too far from the original (like some other recent film versions did).

Of course, there were some ill-judged costume bits: temple frame spectacles on one character stood out (as they appeared only c. 150 years later), as well as the umbrella to hold off rain.

This first part of the two-part film certainly loses to Lester's films from the 1970s, but it's still a somewhat enjoyable "dark" version of the adventure. I'm teetering between 3/5 and 3.5/5, but - for the moment - I'll let it lie at 3/5 (6/10).

Unexpectedly excellent!

[theredmare · 9/10 · 7 April 2023]

I will start by saying I'm a huge long time fan of Dumas and the books.

I have basically not liked any adaptations of it before.

I have loved this. It is a mix of exactly the book, and not the book at all. The atmosphere is dark, the action is excellent, I was never bored. It is easy to follow even if you don't know French history, but it is not dumbed down either.

The cast (as per real history and the novel) is FANTASTIC. The story is modernised and completely over the top which corresponds totally to the spirit of Dumas, if not to the actual book (it was way over the top for its time as well) .

You come out of there like you did as a child after watching a swashbuckling movie with Errol Flynn.

My brother cheered loudly like a child, a girl in the audience was crying, all in all, a roaring success in the vein of the very old action movies, but completely modernised with a certain dark steampunk flair.

Highly highly recommend. Especially with a good screen and sound which are worth it.

Meh?

[sadrackga · 6/10 · 26 April 2023]

I never wrote a review, never, but for this film, I felt that I needed it.

First, I gave it 6 not because of the cinematography, or because of the costumes, I give it 6 because the story is just nonsense for me. I never read the book, and I have a feeling that he is much better than this film. The pace is just too rushed, I don't have breath to understand all of it, and the storyline is very bad to me. Like, why the hell these man would save the nation? Because the queen have affairs with the "enemy"? I'm on the side of the enemy! But the story makes a happy ending for the reign of France... bleh.

It's a normal film to see while you use your smartphone.

"He lives with his demons, he tries to drown them in alcohol, but over time they have learned to swim".

[valmont1702 · 9/10 · 15 April 2023]

Like a metaphor to this exquisite quote from the movie, a menace from the shadows disrupts the Kingdom of France, in spite of all the efforts to maintain it afloat...

The story of The Three Musketeers has been told and retold numerous times, and this movie offers a very nicely balanced blend of tones... You feel the gravitas and heaviness of the situation, while also following our different protagonists that all bring this tasty feeling of adventure and historical fresco ; it is filled with a clever humor, powerful and intense dramatic scenes, dillemas ; espionage, conspiracies and manipulation that punctuate the story and give the film its thickness & richness ; but there also is a cute little romance that brings a sweet levity to the piece.

All of this is majestically served by a plethoric cast, the cream of French acting. They all fit their characters perfectly, and every character offers rich layers and fills certain specific archetypes useful each in the part they play for the overarching storyline... There is this greater "scheme" and at its heart there is this "hero journey"...

A storyline that's convoluted while being easy to read and process, because well built through the various steps of the evolution of the narrative.

The entire piece is beautifully staged (certain action bits might look a lil muddled/shaky here and there, but everything is prettily choreographed all along)... The grain of the image, its texture, the use of light, the textures, and the close-ups ; it all highlights the actors' performance and pleasantly contributes to our immersion into the various intrigues and themes of the story...

A last mention and praise to the music score, which is grandiose and perfectly orchestrated ; often epic, silky at times, and simply subtle when needed... Superb composition.

Overall, the quality of all the ingredients as well as the final product are excellent, and the great production value is the cherry on top of the cake.

A very good movie which won't leave you indifferent and will probably be remembered beautifully.

Great work of art.

Good but too slow

[jazzinplayer · 6/10 · 27 April 2023]

Acting is good, cinematography is very good and the set is beautiful and realistic. Outfits are great and you do get a good feeling about the time the story is happening.

The narrative is a bit broken, they try to go deep in some areas but fail so things remain left like suspended mid air. The main plot is vague and many things happen at the same time, you don't get lost, but it lacks purpose in some way, plus very slow pace it gets boring.

I'm not a hard core Dumas fan but I do remember musketeers where young like D' Artagnan and this dude's are old. Didn't bother me but being a book adaptation feels wrong.

Is 57 the new 27?

[sofia36 · 3/10 · 14 April 2023]

I'm a huge fan of Dumas and The Three Musketeers is one of my favorite books. I have been watching various adaptations for years hoping one of them will finally get it right. I was particularly hopeful about this one - I thought if anyone can do it justice it should be the French.

For an adaptation of classic novel to be good it must be faithful to the original source material and not make unnecessary alterations to the plot.

It must also adequately capture the atmosphere of the time period, the main theme and the essence of the book - which to me was honor, loyalty and friendship.

Another very important requirement is proper character development. And for that to truly work the actors should look like the characters as described in the book and be approximately the same age (or at least look that age).

In terms of casting - I'd give this adaptation a 3/10.

I know Vincent Casel is a good actor but he is 57 years old!!! He could have played another character. Why did they cast him as Athos? Athos is supposed to be 27-29 and very handsome (I know this is highly subjective but still).

The actor playing Aramis is also 50 when he should be 22-23. He is not attractive or charming either and Aramis is supposed to be the best looking one of the bunch (at least most other adaptations get this right).

For some reason everyone loves Eva Green - she maybe great in other movies but I don't like her as Milady at all. Milady is supposed to be intoxicatingly beautiful and blonde. This actress has jet black hair and is rather plain looking. I have no idea why the director made her smoke a pipe - this just makes her look like a cartoon villain.

They also made Porthos bisexual. Think of that what you will - I personally find if ridiculous.

If that wasn't enough to disappoint all hard core fans of the book - the plot has been drastically changed.

It's annoying because they have kept some parts very close to the book and created this illusion of authenticity. The cinematography is cool looking and the setting has a realistic feel. I like that it is not a slapstick comedy like some of the other adaptation attempts. That being said - the camera angles are a bit weird. They put you in the middle of the duels so you can't get a good feel of what's happening. And the editing is very choppy.

Overall I don't regret watching this film but I can't say that I liked it.

I guess I'll have to wait another 3-5 years until someone attempts to adapt this book again - maybe they will finally get it right.

A fresh view on the famous french novel

[ggrezzana · 7/10 · 9 May 2023]

If you are looking for a modern shootage of the three musketeers, the movie will please you. Well thought battle scenes, dynamic photography and a bit of humor are served in the movie. The fights are very vivid - unlike the almost "chivalric" way they were choreographed in previous three musketeers movies. Noteworthy is also the musketeers' quite rustic clothing, while in previous movies they wore plain uniforms. In a few words, it is a fresh modern view on a timeless story.

At some points the movie deviates from the original novel, but I don't think that it seriously damages the plot. What I missed most was character construction. Of course one should not expect an action movie to leave much room for character construction, but since the movie is intended to have a sequel and the french novel is quite rich in character details, I think this part could have been better explored in the movie. The scene at the cliff, for example, which was the most impactful one when I read the book, lacks emotion. Interestingly the initial and the ending scenes are symmetrical.

The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan

[CinemaSerf · 7/10 · 16 May 2023]

I enjoyed this. Plenty of swash, buckle and enough faith with the original Alexandre Dumas story to give the narrative - and the production - some integrity. "D'Artagnan" (an engaging François Civil) arrives in Paris bent on becoming one of the KIng's discredited musketeers. Before his first day is out, though, he has encountered three individuals whose honour requires an early morning meeting with swords drawn. Luckily before they have their opportunities to fill the young man full of holes, "Athos" (Vincent Cassel); "Aramis" (Romain Duris) and "Porthos" (Pio Marmaï) join forces to defeat the men from the Cardinal's guard who inform them that duelling is illegal. That pretty much sets the tone for this enjoyable action-packed adventure. There is a soupçon of romance between our young hero and "Constance" (Lyna Khoudri) but that doesn't get much opportunity to clutter up the thread as our four intrepid and loyal soldiers have to try and save the honour of the queen (Vicky Krieps) from the scheming of Cardinal Richelieu (Eric Raf) and his arch-assassin "Milady" (Eva Green). Now, as usual, Green is terrible. She exudes precisely no menace and made me wish it could have been Lana Turner reincarnate. Otherwise, though, Martin Bourboulon keeps the pace moving nicely, the scenarios are authentic looking with a great deal of Parisian mud to trudge and fight through before a daring denouement that sets the whole thing up for what I assume is a part two. Simply, it takes skill to screw up a strong story and nobody here manages that - it's a good, old-fashioned, escapade driven story of loyalty and duplicity and for two hours, I lapped it up.

Great but shallow at the same time

[dalibor-147-501629 · 6/10 · 25 April 2023]

Great production, great acting and great action scenes. Unfortunatly too slow and it simply feels something is missing. I've enjoyed waching it but I have no desire to whatch it again. On the other hand, I've whatched The man in the iron mask several times (personaly my favorite adaptation).

The movie tries to be realistic, but the main plot is still sort of a farytail. It also tries to achive depth but it leaves many things shallow so it flotes somewhere in the midle betwine history drama and light action classic. Worth to watch, but I expect to forget it soon. Too soon for souch great production.

Really good part one

[masonsaul · 7/10 · 25 October 2023]

The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan is a suitably thrilling origin story for the titular Musketeers as well as a mostly satisfying part one. It divides nicely into two parts with a first half that's heavier on the action and second that goes further into the political scheming of it all and divides its characters in interesting ways.

François Civil, Vincent Cassel, Romain Duris and Pio Marmaï are all great. The rapport between them is a lot of fun, however the amount of time they spend together as a team is minimal, which helps and hinders in equal measure. Eva Green is delightfully evil and even though she's prominent throughout, more screen time wouldn't have gone unwanted.

Martin Bourboulon's direction shines brightest during the swashbuckling scenes which are really entertaining mainly thanks to them being almost exclusively one takes, the joins are obvious but it doesn't detract from the fun. Outside of the action the film has a generally impressive production value that extends a lot further than expected.

Three Muscats & Dart

[quiquiuiuiuiui · 7/10 · 4 May 2023]

Pros: really good take on d'Artagnan, Louis's even more creepy than usual, awesome fighting scenes, beautifull cinematography.

Cons: old Athos looking old, Milady menacingly smoking her pipe, plot? What plot?

Meh: Aramis looking like a scarecrow, boring Richelieu, where did Porthos go?

Still, the movie is good & enjoyable. It could be just a bit better.

Somewhere along the Reine, during long months of preparations, fighting & fencing lessons, the plot was lost. If found, please, send it to the director of the movie. There's still time to improve the second part.

Anyway, I know what to do to enjoy the next part more. I will be prepared.

And remember: All for one! And one for all!

I liked it

[rainer24 · 10/10 · 6 April 2023]

I have read the book around 20 times, when I was young. And we had very good russian mini series, which really set the par high for me. I have seen all the adaptations done mean while. And I must say, this is one of the best. Yes, there is some new storylines, but all-in-all it is the same story and the camera angles and designer work is something to be reckon in Oscars gala.

It is always different movie experience, when You know the story and specially this one, which is done so many times. And very hard to compaire the characters and actors in it. I would say we have seen many powerfull Miladys in time, but Eva Green is one of the best for sure.

So and so

[custompixelworks · 6/10 · 11 August 2023]

The good The movie is not as bad as most fr movies.

The atmosphere and the story are quite interesting.

The fighting is surprisingly good.

The bad The actors are literally dirty - all the time - the characters look like beggars and there is no need for this. This is not a historic movie, is for entertainment only. This made me really dislike the movie.

The pacing is steady but there is no culminant point, nothing thrilling, no burst of anything. I've seen documentaries more thrilling than this.

Conclusion.

It is a very mixed bag. It is not bad but this could have been something like "The Last of the Mohicans" easily with better directing. It is missing the drama and the passion.

The book deserves justice and this is not the one. But if you are in the right mood, yeah it could work.

Excellent version of timeless classic

[jamesmcconnon · 8/10 · 29 April 2023]

Only the French could come up with a swashbuckling boy's own adventure where the hero saves the day by covering up adultery, but I'm glad they did.

Whilst none of the versions of this come close to the Richard Lester classic (well, maybe Dog Tanian) this one is very good indeed.

The colour palette is the modern brown and grimy one we've gotten used to from the more recent Bond movies, which is quite appropriate since Eva Green features as the duplicitous Milady, will, why break the habit of a lifetime. She's probably the best one to play the part since Faye Dunaway, and I look forward to seeing more of her in the sequel, which is named after her character.

Anyway this is a lot of fun you'll care about the characters, and there is a breathtaking cliff edge horse chase. True, you'll miss Roy Kinnear's mumbling asides but there is plenty to enjoy here.

Basic and fundamentally good

[legrandjul · 7/10 · 30 October 2023]

Making a « three musketeers » film is by definition an easy/hard task.

In the sense that everyone that saw at leat one of the million other film made on this subject, will immediately have an « expert » opinion.

The story, based on the book, is so famous that it became a super hero franchise without trade or copyright. The book itself, published in 1844 tell the story of d'Artagnan and his pals in circa 1635/1650. Two centuries appart !!

(No one still alive to verify the wonders or accuracies of interprétations)

So, once you've stop listening to the cynical, cold pissing, experts of everything and nothing, you can probably enjoy a nice, well made, conformist yet modern film that tells an old story.

Love, fear, doubts, mistakes, redemption and entertainment. It's all in there, in a very digestible production with good actors and a pleasant storyline.

To sum up. A good flix.

Dark, gritty and Politically correct

[Sir Gerry · 5/10 · 2 December 2023]

I've watched every tv show or movie ever made about the Musketeers, and this is the first one I didn't finish. My all time favorite is the BBC series of 2013. I even enjoy the Charlie Sheen Disney movie, and there's a special place in my heart for DiCaprio in the Iron Mask (Jeremy Irons is the best Aramis ever) I prefer my Musketeers lighter, funnier and more adventure oriented than drama like. This new adaptation is rather gritty and dirty. No doubt that the 1600's were not sterilized, but this movie is more like early middle ages than romantic France. Also, maybe the populace lived in dirt and mud, but the King and his guard didn't. The casting of the Musketeers was also rather odd, these guys don't look the part at all, they just seem like regular folk, no charisma or presence. Milady the Winter and Treville are on point.

Funny they wanted to preserve or recreate the dirt and grit of war engulfed France of the 1600's but they had to add the 2023 touch to it by making Porthos Bi. Filmmakers, respect the source material. Period.

The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan

[henry8-3 · 6/10 · 9 December 2023]

Young, headstrong D'Artgnan leaves his rural roots and heads to Paris to become a musketeer. Attacked and left for dead, he recovers and in looking for those that attacked him falls foul of 3 musketeers Porthos, Aramis and Athos, who all challenge him to a duel for his insolence. However, instead he helps them in a fight of their own and becomes their firm friend, falls in love and becomes embroiled in an adventure to stop the evil Cardinal Richelieu growing his power base at court, starting with a betrayal of the queen.

Given that the story is French, it is a bit strange that there hasn't been a French version for over 60 years, but enjoyably this has put that right. We are rather used to our Three Musketeer stories being rather light hearted pieces of derring do and usually bordering on straight comedy eg the glorious Richard Lester versions from the seventies. This version - part 2 is to follow - is far more serious and rather more determined to stay loyal to the book and its tone. It is noticeably more serious and darker than previous adaptations, albeit flecked with bits of humour, but this shouldn't put you off. There is of course a strong story here which here has yielded many exciting and well staged set pieces set amongst some glorious French backdrops. Enjoyably, but more serious than usual piece of swashbuckling.

Interesting take on an old story

[cow-53108 · 7/10 · 16 December 2023]

Amazing sets. I take it that they shot at actual locations.

However some stuff kept bugging me. How come the musketeers look so dirty. It's a of they never cleaned themselves. And their clothes... somehow I don't think that they will wear like that when they are presented to the king. Just seemed that Richard Lester version was more accurate and managed to capture the essence of the story with the humor to carry the story along.

The story was a bit weak and unnecessarily convoluted. I think the sub plot regarding Athos was an unnecessary diversion. Just added some level of confusion by throwing the conflict of the protestants and catholics into the mix. And This story depends a lot on the interaction between the newest member of the musketeers and the others. Which somehow didn't seem to be very well fleshed out. Lester's version showed a lot of camaraderie through interacting with each other. This show stretched their relationship. However I loved their interpretation of the period.

Eva Greene as usual was transcendent. She was a sight for sore eyes.