The Return of the Musketeers - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Return of the Musketeers Reviews

Page 1 of 2
Super Reviewer
½ May 5, 2013
Some 15 years later we have this late trilogy bookend for this noteable franchise. Funnily enough the film is based on Dumas' sequel novel 'Twenty Years After' and that's almost the same amount of time which had passed from 'The Four Musketeers' and this third film.

So to look at the characters it really does feel very authentic as everyone has indeed aged some 20 years...almost. In fact the entire cast has all been brought back once again to don their fancy pants and wigs, quite impressive I must say for the continuity.

Again its pretty much business as usual for Lester and his crew, and once again they have produced/created a sterling offering which still manages to look and sound just as lavish and authentic as the previous two films. I can't fault anything on display in this film whatsoever, all the visuals, locations, props, sets, costumes, weapons etc...everything just like before is beautifully crafted and visualised.

The comedy is as you have come to expect from Lester with these films, both silly pratfalls wise and the various subtle little dubbed gags. The action is fair but feels a little too childish this time round, of course we know its suppose to be but this time it does feel just a bit too silly with very few kills. Can't help but mention that the age of the main four fellows clearly hinders the swashbuckling somewhat, makes everything feel a bit like a Benny Hill sequence at times.

Age aside everyone is still on top form, no slacking here as all cast members are clearly having a great time hamming it up in a flurry of swords, facial hair n wine. Oliver Reed was born for this role I believe, I'm not even sure if he knew he was in a film, just drinking, fighting and being loud. A great shame about Roy kinnear though, such a lose, even worse when its a needless accident.

It seems that one problem is that of Kim Cattrall as 'Justine de Winter'. She doesn't quite fit the bill in this role methinks, I can't quite put my finger on it, maybe her face looks too 'present day' or 80's, but she just doesn't fit in. I can see her in a daft sexy comedy alongside someone like Tom Hanks but just not in a period piece like this. It also bugs me that people must always alter things when they adapt, 'Milady de Winter' was suppose to have a son not a daughter, so why change it??.

Overall this is still a great fun film which all the family can enjoy no doubt. Though despite it still looking superb I can't help but feel its not really required. The first two films gave you your complete Musketeer fix, they explored every avenue, every nook and cranny of 17th Century France and pretty much gave you everything you could ask for in a swashbuckler.

This does feel a bit tired, a bit late in the day and a bit of a rehash really, just the same as before. Sure its not a bad thing and the characters being old is a nice spin which of course connects to the original source material but it just doesn't really offer you anything new. The first two films did it all perfectly and to be honest...better, this just feels like a return trip without the freshness.

Still a great film but simply not in the same league as the first two, it may even bore you in parts. And how the hell does the 'Count De Rochefort' survive the previous film to here?! He was well n truly run through, even in this day and age you wouldn't have much of a chance with that one, so how on earth he overcame that little nick is anyone's guess haha.
Super Reviewer
½ September 6, 2010
This third movie in the Musketeers movies started in 74 wasn't needed. Sure it has the same actors for the most part, but it's more of a stupid comedy movie than a great adventure. I didn't like it.
jjnxn
Super Reviewer
May 21, 2010
Light hearted romp that's no classic but moves at a lively clip and has a spirtied cast, most returning from the 70's version of The Three Musketeers.
garyX
Super Reviewer
April 3, 2007
This belated second sequel to The Three Musketeers is a rather slapdash, uneven patchwork of weak writing and sloppily directed set pieces that fails to recreate the magic of the previous films. It's not a complete waste of time as there are some funny lines and decent moments, and Kim Cattrall looks pretty good in leather pants. Christopher Lee's character is completely wasted though.
Super Reviewer
April 22, 2007
Good fun
deano
Super Reviewer
½ November 7, 2006
Worst one of 'The Three Musketeers' movies because they looked olders.
Super Reviewer
½ February 13, 2012
After two great films in the 70's there was no reason to suggest that Lester couldn't repeat the trick with another Musketeer film in the late 80's with the same cast. After all the film is supposedly based on Dumas' '20 Years After' and if this had been a success I'm sure 'The Man in the Iron Mask' would have followed (although Chamberlain had already done a decent version of this in the 70's). Unfortunately the film is hampered by a number of problems, the most obvious being the tragic death of Kinnear during the filming. Also Lester has forgotten that the previous films had real heart to them and has boosted up the comedy value to the point where the viewer can't take the central characters seriously anymore. Howell and Cattrall have been brought into the mix for newer viewers and they're fine in their roles but you end up missing Dunaway and Heston and Lee is reduced to being a bumbling coward. A shame.
½ October 3, 2015
Has a wonderful cast & a great concept that pits the musketeers on the receiving end of now being hunted themselves, now that they are retired & separated. But alas, this film plays like a silly comedy which ruins the concept. Some fun humor interaction was expected to keep the film fun, but this was overkill.
½ October 3, 2015
Has a wonderful cast & a great concept that pits the musketeers on the receiving end of now being hunted themselves, now that they are retired & separated. But alas, this film plays like a silly comedy which ruins the concept. Some fun humor interaction was expected to keep the film fun, but this was overkill.
May 29, 2015
Silly, but better than expected. Entertaining for kids.
Super Reviewer
½ May 5, 2013
Some 15 years later we have this late trilogy bookend for this noteable franchise. Funnily enough the film is based on Dumas' sequel novel 'Twenty Years After' and that's almost the same amount of time which had passed from 'The Four Musketeers' and this third film.

So to look at the characters it really does feel very authentic as everyone has indeed aged some 20 years...almost. In fact the entire cast has all been brought back once again to don their fancy pants and wigs, quite impressive I must say for the continuity.

Again its pretty much business as usual for Lester and his crew, and once again they have produced/created a sterling offering which still manages to look and sound just as lavish and authentic as the previous two films. I can't fault anything on display in this film whatsoever, all the visuals, locations, props, sets, costumes, weapons etc...everything just like before is beautifully crafted and visualised.

The comedy is as you have come to expect from Lester with these films, both silly pratfalls wise and the various subtle little dubbed gags. The action is fair but feels a little too childish this time round, of course we know its suppose to be but this time it does feel just a bit too silly with very few kills. Can't help but mention that the age of the main four fellows clearly hinders the swashbuckling somewhat, makes everything feel a bit like a Benny Hill sequence at times.

Age aside everyone is still on top form, no slacking here as all cast members are clearly having a great time hamming it up in a flurry of swords, facial hair n wine. Oliver Reed was born for this role I believe, I'm not even sure if he knew he was in a film, just drinking, fighting and being loud. A great shame about Roy kinnear though, such a lose, even worse when its a needless accident.

It seems that one problem is that of Kim Cattrall as 'Justine de Winter'. She doesn't quite fit the bill in this role methinks, I can't quite put my finger on it, maybe her face looks too 'present day' or 80's, but she just doesn't fit in. I can see her in a daft sexy comedy alongside someone like Tom Hanks but just not in a period piece like this. It also bugs me that people must always alter things when they adapt, 'Milady de Winter' was suppose to have a son not a daughter, so why change it??.

Overall this is still a great fun film which all the family can enjoy no doubt. Though despite it still looking superb I can't help but feel its not really required. The first two films gave you your complete Musketeer fix, they explored every avenue, every nook and cranny of 17th Century France and pretty much gave you everything you could ask for in a swashbuckler.

This does feel a bit tired, a bit late in the day and a bit of a rehash really, just the same as before. Sure its not a bad thing and the characters being old is a nice spin which of course connects to the original source material but it just doesn't really offer you anything new. The first two films did it all perfectly and to be honest...better, this just feels like a return trip without the freshness.

Still a great film but simply not in the same league as the first two, it may even bore you in parts. And how the hell does the 'Count De Rochefort' survive the previous film to here?! He was well n truly run through, even in this day and age you wouldn't have much of a chance with that one, so how on earth he overcame that little nick is anyone's guess haha.
½ January 27, 2013
This was very bad. What better way to add some chemistry on screen by adding in C. Thomas Howell?
½ April 10, 2012
This was very bad. What better way to add some chemistry on screen by adding in C. Thomas Howell?
Super Reviewer
½ February 13, 2012
After two great films in the 70's there was no reason to suggest that Lester couldn't repeat the trick with another Musketeer film in the late 80's with the same cast. After all the film is supposedly based on Dumas' '20 Years After' and if this had been a success I'm sure 'The Man in the Iron Mask' would have followed (although Chamberlain had already done a decent version of this in the 70's). Unfortunately the film is hampered by a number of problems, the most obvious being the tragic death of Kinnear during the filming. Also Lester has forgotten that the previous films had real heart to them and has boosted up the comedy value to the point where the viewer can't take the central characters seriously anymore. Howell and Cattrall have been brought into the mix for newer viewers and they're fine in their roles but you end up missing Dunaway and Heston and Lee is reduced to being a bumbling coward. A shame.
October 12, 2011
trippin to see the best band of musketeers back together, granted its not as good as before but thats not what this is about, its a fine conclusion to a great franchise of movies considering how long it took to come out
Super Reviewer
½ September 6, 2010
This third movie in the Musketeers movies started in 74 wasn't needed. Sure it has the same actors for the most part, but it's more of a stupid comedy movie than a great adventure. I didn't like it.
September 29, 2010
Certainly weaker, but no less enjoyable than the other 2. Great Trilogy!
½ June 27, 2010
Fun if flawed follow-up to Lester's 1970's Musketeer films. has some narrative problems but a lot of the fights, atmosphere and jokes about the 17th century work well, such as "Why do things fall to the ground." "Probably something to do with religion."
jjnxn
Super Reviewer
May 21, 2010
Light hearted romp that's no classic but moves at a lively clip and has a spirtied cast, most returning from the 70's version of The Three Musketeers.
November 19, 2009
15 years after Richard Lester did The Three Musketeers (1973) and The Four Musketeers (1974), it seemed very appropriate that they should adapt Alexandre Dumas' 1845 serialised book Twenty Years After, reuniting much of the original cast and crew for this one. It's not as good as the first 2 films, and it plays the film mainly for laughs. It has the greedy Cardinal Mazarin (Philippe Noiret) hiring d'Artagnan (Michael York), and asking that he reunites the other Three Musketeers, Athos (Oliver Reed), Porthos (Frank Finlay), and Aramis (Richard Chamberlain) to work for Mazarin. Matters are complicated when Aramis walks out after a skirmish, and they have to deal with Justine de Winter (Kim Cattrall), who is seeking veagence for the death of her mother. It is fun while it lasts, but it is very patchy, and it's comedic tone is what you'd expect from director Richard Lester's films of the 1960's. Sadly, he quit directing after this, in part due to the tragic on-set death of his friend Roy Kinnear. But, it's fun while it lasts, and even as older men, the Musketeers can still put up a good fight. The supporting cast includes Geraldine Chaplin, Christopher Lee, Bill Paterson, Billy Connolly and Pat Roach!! :D
Page 1 of 2