The Three Musketeers - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Three Musketeers Reviews

Page 1 of 149
½ December 7, 2017
"The Three Musketeers" (2011): a splendid remake of a renowned classic
"All for one and one for all" the four (yes, four) Musketeers chant as they raise their swords in union. "The Three Musketeers" (2011) is a remake of the classic and is worth watching at least once.
The first notable thing about this movie is the director's (Paul W.S. Anderson) indecisiveness on a plot (there are at least four of them). As it turns out, Anderson could not decide if he wanted to write a love story, a war story, or a rivalry story so he went with all three. You may think this is excessive, and you are right; however, Anderson masterfully wove the plot together to create a respectable movie.
In the movie, young D'Artagnon (Logan Lerman) sets off to Paris to the join the famous Musketeers, Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson), and Aramis (Luke Evans). However, once there, he finds them broke and drunk because they had no cause to fight for. As the Four Musketeers search for a cause, the king's chief adviser, Richelieu (Christoph Waltz), along with the beautiful double agent Milady (expertly played by Millia Jovovich), plot to overthrow the incompetent, young King Louis (Freddie Fox) and gain control of France. All the while, England and France (both with the help of Milady, of course) are fighting over the blueprints for, as Richelieu aptly puts it, "an...airship?"
Due to the nature of the movie, the plot can get confusing at times because there are so many characters to keep track of. Yet, it is still a good movie because of these interwoven plots.
If this movie were a piece of toast, the music would be the jelly on top. The score was very suiting to its particular scene and the feel of the movie; however, it is repetitive.
For example, the camera zooms in on the courtyard of the Palace of Versailles numerous times in the movie. Every time this scene plays, the same sounding grand music plays. It is cool the first time; however, the music, and the scene itself for that matter, get repetitive the second or third time.
Now this is not to say the score was bad. It wasn't. It just needed more variety.
The major redeeming quality of this movie is the fighting (more specifically the weaponry). For such an old movie, the choreography was very good, yet the best aspect of the fighting was the humorously impractical weapons.
"How impractical?" you might ask. Umbrella of death impractical; the umbrella's spindles are the arms of five loaded crossbows. Needless to say if you were on the wrong end of this weapon, you will have a very bad day.
Or take the machine carronade on the front of the airship the Musketeers pirated. This weapon consisted of multiple small carronades facing every direction, and when it fired the entire ring of cannons spun. While cool and rather effective while firing, the impracticality came when reloading. The gunner had to reload each of twenty barrels individually, all while under heavy fire for (of course) the gun is very exposed.
Yet this impracticality is what makes "The Three Musketeers" such a fun movie. Yes, it has its flaws, but its successes are well worth the time and money spent watching this unique film.
½ November 14, 2017
t'was a decent movie. I dunno what people are finding shitty in this. There are a lot of bad movies out there getting crazy ratings. Im starting to doubt rotten tomatoes opinion
½ November 4, 2017
Amusing, but overblown....
August 6, 2017
This movie was well made. Had a nice story. Great character and plot development. And overall it was fun. The acting was great as well. Not sure why it got low reviews.
July 22, 2017
While not the best version of The Three Musketeers, it does have some fun moments and it doesn't take itself too serious, so a level of joy can be found while watching it. They just needed to work on romantic chemistry where it was needed and Paul W.S. Anderson needs to stop trying to be a poor man's Zack Snyder when it comes to action scenes.
July 17, 2017
It may be too ambitious and bizarre for some, but it's easy to get lost in the colorful and admittedly stylish swashbuckling action.
June 27, 2017
Some fun action sequences and little else
June 3, 2017
Stylish, overblown and not at all to be taken seriously. With that in mind, it was a riot from start to finish.
May 21, 2017
I Loved It! Apart from the airships, which did add a Jules Verne aspect to the plot, it was remarkably true to the story. More so than most adaptations. Probably unlike most reviewers I have actually read the original, in French. D'Artagnan should be young, Louis XIII should be silly. The costumes and locations were 17th century, if a little confused between Louis XIII and Louis XIV. A really amusing romp, which actually managed to keep me awake throughout, which is a rare thing in a film!
May 18, 2017
I really enjoyed it I don't know why it didn't do well it's fun and full of adventure
April 24, 2017
I saw this again recently and I enjoyed it immensely.

So why?

The characters... the director gets the characters right and follows the story with all the character high points. The king is immature- but human- not a characters.

The swordplay and stuntwork is creative.

I felt the director had actually read the story unlike the disney efforts. And I think the director had watched the Michael York version. The french court felt the same. Opulant, crazy wealthy- (little bits like servants unrolling a red carpet ahead of the king while he's out for a stroll in the garden).

Rochefort, the Cardinal, were solid tho Rochefort was much more dishonorable.

Athos was suitably athoslike, Aramis was even better, but I adored this Portos. Proud, vain, immensely strong.

Planchett was an interesting note tho. He was treated right but rang false for the first half of the movie but over time he won me over. He was the same Planchett I'd seen in the York musketeers.

The only character I found different was Buckingham. But I simply adored his fashion battle with the King.

I still prefer the York 3 and 4 musketeers but I quite liked this one too.

Go in expecting the three musketeers plus steam punk and you'll be delighted.
½ March 22, 2017
The trailer makes this look really good. But the characters (while not horrible) are not that good, the story (which could have easily been good) seems unfocused and lazy, and even the fights are not the best at times. Honestly, I'm more upset because this looked really good based on trailers, but ended up sucking horribly.
½ February 28, 2017
Flying Pirate Ships?!!
½ February 16, 2017
Ridiculous, but for some reason, I had a fun time with it. It's a movie that doesn't always make sense, but what you going to do.
January 28, 2017
I was entertained. Fun movie not to be taken too serious.
½ January 25, 2017
Some terrific, game actors in a garbage heap film.
January 22, 2017
Great movie. I'm not sure why everyone is crying about it being a bad movie. Not every old fashioned movie needs to be cliché and this version had me laughing from start to finish with lots of action. All the actors were great and the cgi fit right in to the tone of the movie. Should have made a sequel. People need to lighten up..
January 21, 2017
This movie was bad. Did not accurately portray the true story of the Three Musketeers. The airships showed that. The acting was bad. The action was good at times.
½ January 18, 2017
A mess of a story, nonsensical in all ways with terrible acting and dull one dimensional characters. I am rather stumped at how so many big name actors signed up to a Paul WS Anderson film. Was then more depressing when I realized Richelieu was being played by Christoph Waltz. Why? The pay couldn't possibly have been good enough to justify saying "yes" to this trash.
December 30, 2016
It's good movie to watch
Page 1 of 149