Movies: 18470 | TV Series: 3282 | Added Today: 0 | Storage: 65898 GB

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Actors
Til Schweiger
Logan Lerman
Orlando Bloom
Milla Jovovich
Matthew MacFadyen
Christian Oliver
Mads Mikkelsen

Director	IMDB Rating
Paul W.S. Anderson	6 out of 10 (14422 votes)

Year	2011

Available Quality	DivX, iPod

Tweet

		480x208	361 MiB
		720x304	1453 MiB

Storyline

Plot Summary:

The hot-headed young DArtagnan along with three former legendary but now down on their luck Musketeers must unite and defeat a beautiful double agent and her villainous employer from seizing the French throne and engulfing Europe in war.

Movie Photo

The Avengers

Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

The Hunger Games

Action, Thriller, Drama

This Means War

Action, Comedy, Romance

Battleship

Action, Thriller, Sci-Fi

21 Jump Street

Action, Comedy

Megan

21 May 2012

This movie was pretty awesome :)

I will admit, it was a bit cheesy and clichÃ©d, but I was prettyentertained. It wasn't always historically accurate, but come on, it'sjust a movie. From my limited knowledge about the book, it's not thathistorically accurate, either. I've read about Queen Anne and KingLouis and from my knowledge, they were nothing like they were portrayedin the movie or in the book. I actually like the way the movie wasdone, because I never really liked the characters the way they wereportrayed in other movies. And I will admit that I've never actuallyfinished the book. I find it hard to follow Alexandre Dumas-I tried toread The Count of Monte Cristo as well, and never finished it, but Ithoroughly enjoyed the movie, as different as it was from the book.Normally, though, I prefer books to movies, but this is a rare case.But anyhoo, the movie was pretty funny, and there was plenty ofentertaining sword fighting, too :) It was the best version of theThree Musketeers I've ever seen-and I've seen about three differentversions. There was one from the 40s or 50s in black and white that Ienjoyed, but this was much better :)

Jered Markoff

21 May 2012

Really?

I actually expected this movie to be bad based on the previews, andafter the first 5 minutes, which were kind of entertaining, I thought"maybe this won't be so bad". But every attempt at humor is completelydry, and the story is told in the worst way possible. Aside from theopening scene, everything added to the story in an attempt to make itdifferent from the standard Three Musketeer plot is completely lame.And even Orlando Bloom acted like a rookie! I don't know how on earththis managed to get financed. If you want some real entertainment,watch the 1993 version, in which Tim Curry is the best evil Cardinalever!

Himeko Himura

19 May 2012

I'm pretty sure most critics will not understand how amazing this movie was...

That's right, I gave it a ten out of ten. Before you go to this movie, don't have high expectations. Don't thinkthat this will be anything like the three musketeers that you know andlove. Throw out your knowledge of history, your knowledge of thecharacters, your knowledge of the storyline...In fact, throw out everything you know about life. This movie was pure crack. The script itself was made to be that bad.You're supposed to raise your eye at uncharacteristic words coming outof your most beloved musketeer heroes and just let the SFX blow yourmind as well as the blatant misuse of historical monuments. My friends and I really couldn't stop laughing. We found it amazinglyentertaining and pure fun. If you're going to this thinking that you'regoing to go see something that is historically correct or is anythinglike Les Trois Mousquetaires, then you're going into this the wrongway.This is a movie that is supposed to be as fun as King Louis' wardrobe(watch this and you'll understand) so don't take it too seriously. Justenjoy all the things Orlando Bloom has learned from Jack Sparrow. Iknow I did!

arnd-mueller

19 May 2012

worst Musketeer ever

When I first saw the trailer, I was happy that someone tried a newmusketeer movie. Because they were always my favorite hero characters. But when I watched the movie, after 2 minutes, I realized that it'sjust another "Milla Evil movie", flying high in the air killing'baddies. What seems to work in Resident evil, feels much from outerspace in this movie. But maybe that's what the Director wanted,because, believe it or not, it got flying air ships as well. I wonderif any one doing this movie, hast ever read Alexandre Dumas books,about the musketeers.This movie is one of the worst musketeer movies, ever made, they evenshot this movie in Bavaria, not in France!If you looking' forward for a good sword fighting musketeer movie, Iwould recommend, the 3 Oliver Reed movies, which are close to thebooks, and a lot more fun to watch.And please, don't think about, giving' us sequels, to this trash.

ultimate_desire2

17 May 2012

One of the better versions!

I'm sure many of us out there would at least have watched one of theremakes of Alexander Dumas' famous novel. To me this has got to be oneof the best! Firstly, all the cast were perfect to a T! Right up toyounger casts of the show. (Luke Evans actually looks a bit like HeathLedger in this role). Matthew's Arthos, Ray's Porthos and Luke's Aramisactually give the 3 musketeers a fresh breathe of life. The bad guysare also perfect (I won't tell you who they are). But I've alwaysenjoyed Christoph Waltz' baddie characters. I can't help but think ofKenneth Branagh's Wild Wild West (with Will smith), where newcontraptions, ideas are brought into an old classic. The costumes aresplendid! You can imagine how France is back in the 18th century withall the fashionistas around! I so adore King Louis. He looks like amixture of the Willie Wonka and the Mad Hatter. Although the sets canbe slightly a bit 'plastic-ky'. All in all, I enjoyed it truly andwould be expecting a Part II! I would think this is a good effort forsomething that's not coming from Hollywood (I assume?)

Hellmant

17 May 2012

Of course hardcore fans of Dumas and classic literature will cry blasphemy.

'THE THREE MUSKETEERS': Three Stars (Out of Five)Paul W.S. Anderson's (the man behind such popular B movie fare as the'RESIDENT EVIL' films and 'ALIEN VS. PREDATOR') take on AlexandreDumas's classic swashbuckling adventure. It's sort of a modern'steampunk' variation on the beloved tale and is packed with action and3D visual effects. It was produced and directed by Anderson and writtenby Andrew Davies and Alex Litvak. It stars Anderson's usual femmefatale Milla Jovovich as well as hot young star Logan Lerman (of 'PERCYJACKSON & THE OLYMPIANS' fame) in the D'Artagnan role. Christoph Waltz,Orlando Bloom and Juno Temple also star in colorful supporting rolesand Matthew Macfadyen, Ray Stevenson and Luke Evans play the threeMusketeers. It's the type of routine cheesball B movie fluff you'dexpect from Anderson. Fans of his will probably love it while puristsand more traditional fans of the original material will hate it. I findmyself somewhere in between (but I'm not a die hard fan of Anderson or'The Three Musketeers').This version opens with Athos (Mcfadyen), Porthos (Stevenson) andAramis (Evans) stealing airship blueprints by Leonardo Da Vinci inVenice. They are betrayed by their partner in crime, Athos's loverMilady De Winter (Jovovich), and she hands the blueprints over to herpartner in crime, the Duke of Buckingham (Bloom). The Musketeers aredisbanded by Cardinal Richelieu (Waltz) back in France and Athos andhis buddies become disillusioned and bitter (especially Athos, who'sheart is broken). Their inspiration is rejuvenated of course when ayoung wannabe musketeer, named D'Artagnan, looking to follow in hisfather's footsteps shows up in Paris. After first making enemies withthe three, over trivial quarrels, D'Artaganan joins Athos and his teamand the four take on a new adventure of stopping a plot hatched onceagain by Milady, the Duke of Buckingham and Richelieu. The film is action packed and fans of recent swashbuckling films likethis will probably be more than amused. The 3D is used to optimumeffect and the visuals are pretty. The actors are all decent enough(especially Stevenson, who's becoming a popular scene stealer lately,and Bloom, who probably gives his best performance to date) and forwhat it is the directing is fitting too. Of course hardcore fans ofDumas and classic literature will cry blasphemy but not any more sothan they did for the 1993 Disney version (which I'd say this is aboutequal to) or the 1991 Kevin Costner version of 'Robin Hood'. Fans ofthose types of films will probably love this movie. I enjoyed it butonly moderately so.Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_lBzdmfUfA

Jess H

15 May 2012

I don't care what people say... I really liked it!

OK... I know a lot of people on here really don't like the movie. Iunderstand that there were things that could have been changed aboutit, but for the most part I really enjoyed watching the movie. I lovethe steampunk feel to the movie and the slow motion in the fightscenes. I will say that the girl that played Constance could have donebetter. She was so unemotional and flat. The Three Musketeers andD'Artagnan were great! Great fighting and great humor. I would reallylike to see a sequel. Lastly, the costumes were AMAZING! The dresseswere so bright and colorful. The men looked GREAT! I have seen theDisney Musketeers movie and I hated the costumes from that movie. Imglad this film did such a good on the costumes.

MBloodT

14 May 2012

All For Fun

At first glance, we all know that this will never be a great version ofThe Three Musketeers but with all the flying ships and theswashbucklery, we can still give it a try. The film ends up pretty fun.Even with all the silly nonsense and the modern stuff scattered in thefilm. The cast made it enjoyable. The 3D is surprisingly good. But inthe end, it's just another blockbuster. The film also had troubles toits pacing and the writing is a bit modern. The Three Musketeers won'tend up as a classic but it can be fun in some times.The baffle goes to the director. Paul W.S. Anderson is an unusualperson to direct a film like this since he's more of a futuristicaction movie guy. Adding some steampunk and plenty of slow-mos. Thefilm didn't end up being too faithful to the original story. Thedirector just wants to feel comfortable to his style. Modernism, CoolDevices, Hot Women, and Slow-Mo. The pacing is problematic in thesecond act. It shows the plan of the villains and in parts, you won'tnotice that it already passes another day.The other thing about the second act, the Musketeers are mostly absent.It shows more of the antagonists and their plans. It's likeTransformers where the titular characters only appear when there'sdanger and mostly focuses to a kid and the villains. But here, thetitular characters are not bland.Some of the cast made their scenes enjoyable. Logan Lerman does histhing. Not quite appreciating though. But his female fans will love it.The actors who played the three musketeers gives plenty of personalityto their roles. Matthew Macfadyen is pretty cool as Athos. We don't getto see much Luke Evans but he is cunning as Aramis. Ray Stevenson is asusual, funny and had much character. In the antagonists, ChristopheWaltz has many style of being a villain. Orlando Bloom looks like he'senjoying but a little threat in his little scenes. Mads Mikkelsen isthe only serious villain among them. Milla Jovovich does her swaggerand seductiveness but a little personality.The action is pretty cool. But so much slow-mos. Just like in ResidentEvil Afterlife. Slow-motion to make it cool. Anderson started theseexcessive slow-mos in Resident Evil 4. Maybe he thought these thingswill affect the 3D or maybe he just wanted to be cool. It's cool enoughbut when the musketeers was helping D'Artagnan to fight Rochefort'sarmy, there is one moment of this scene that looks too similar to 300.When Athos was slashing them but here there are no blood. No matter howviolent they kill, you won't see a single drop. The 3D is surprisinglygood. It's almost like a gimmick but this gimmick is actually good.Swords, Bombs, Pointy Objects, and other stuff.The production design is decent. The costumes and the setting are wellmade. The CGI were obviously good. The flying battleships and some CGIswords. CGI bombs. CGI background. The music score fits the whole themebut every single score repeats in every scene. The writing isn't good.Too modern. They said the S word but it's funny anyways.Fans of the original story will definitely be disappointed with thisadaptation but if you are in for some steampunk, slow-mos,swashbuckling swordfights then try watch this. It will not remain aclassic or one of the best. It's not really trying to be the best. It'sjust a version with futuristic elements or it could be just a 3Dgimmick. The movie wasn't bad as I expected but it has those flaws thataren't easy to ignore. It just wanted to be fun. It's good to watch asan action film. As an adaptation, it's good to watch right now butsomeday it'll be forgotten or ignored. But really, this is fun.

David Ferguson

13 May 2012

And One Not for All

Greetings again from the darkness. The trailer told me all I need toknow, but my life-long interest in all things related to the AlexandreDumas novel had me ignoring my movie gut instincts and heading out tocatch this latest version of the Muskateer saga. Since then, I havebeen telling myself "I told you so".Logan Lerman (Percy Jackson & the Olympians) plays the young, brashD'Artagnian, son of a former Muskateer. Lerman may develop into a fineactor someday, but right now he is as bland on screen as Orlando Bloom,who happens to play rival Duke of Buckingham. Athos, Aramis and Porthosare played, respectively, by Matthew Macfadyen (Pride & Prejudice),Luke Evans (Tamara Drewe) and Ray Stevenson (Volstagg in Thor).The boys are a bit out of sorts after being tricked by double-agentMilady, played by Milla Jovovich, who apparently is really working forthe conniving Cardinal played by Christoph Waltz. Mads Mikkelsen playsRochefort the evil army leader and master swordsman, but somehow evenwith Waltz and Mikkelsen, this film is just lacking in bad guysubstance.Director Paul W.S. Anderson is known best for his Resident Evil filmseries and his love of special effects is on full display here. Therewere scenes that reminded me of Will Smith's Wild Wild West, and othersthat looked like Robert Downey, Jr's Sherlock Holmes. If you love theDumas novel, you just cringed. The key to the Muskateers isswashbuckling and sharp, sarcastic wit surrounding wild and athleticsword play, all performed for an honorable mission.It's not the first movie in which I have disappointed, and it certainlywon't be the last. It's just frustrating because ... I told me so.

alek69

12 May 2012

Is your book the same as mine?

I imagine, that they discovered one of the early drafts of this Dumas'book, which he probably wrote while being high on hashish, which wasthen the drug of choice, because not all that I saw was familiar andmade sense.Right at the beginning of the movie we are not in France butin...Venice, where Athos, Porthos, Aramis and......Milady are breakinginto Doge's Palace to steal plans to build a war airship. To be able toreach the secret place one has to get through an underground corridor.However, stepping on it's floor engages a secret mechanism, which inturn activates mechanical arrow throwers from behind the walls, whichmakes it impossible to cross that corridor alive ( I remember professorJones having a similar problem). Well, they did cross it! Back in theirhotel, the four of them merrily drink and proudly look at their booty,not suspecting, that Milady, who tenderly whispers to Athos "I loveyou" has secretly poured a sleeping potion into their drinks.My confusion about Milady then dissipates. Of course: she deceivesthem. She IS evil. When they are incapacitated, a man walks into theroom and even though he is in shade, I know of course who he is. He isthe most evil man in the whole France, the most cunning, the most powerhungry.He is Jean Armand Du Plessis, Cardinal de Richelieu.But, but, but... hold my heart still, no!.. He is not... He is... TheDuke of Buckingham!Milady and Buckingham? In cahoots?He needs those plans to build an air armada to attack France. "Aha" Ithink, "that's how he wants to win his beloved Anne of Austria". Butno! He does not love her! He does not even know her! He just wants towin the bloody war! And the queen does not love him either. She is inlove with her HUSBAND! Oy, I'm confused again!Back to France. A year later. The young d'Artagnan arrives in Paris. Hemeets Athos, Porthos and Aramis and, you know how it ends. They startdueling and those five doomed cardinal guards arrive to arrest them.But wait, from a side entrance a new group of guards is arriving. Andanother, and another. There is more and more of them! And the gloriousfighting starts. Agent Smith and his clones, sorry, I meant thecardinal guards are attacking from all sides, from left, from right, ina circle, from above... Hmm...did I see that somewhere else too?After completely overwhelming the overwhelming enemy, the four, nowfriends, triumphantly walk through Paris. The king rewards them. Thequeen is happy. Richelieu is furious!He devises a plan to incriminate the queen. He calls for...Milady!Thank God. She works for him. I am not totally loosing my mind. Shedeceived Buckingham too and brings those stolen plans to the Cardinal.Something finally is the way it was supposed to be.But wait, the plan is different again!They are not bringing the necklace studs back from Buckingham! No, theyhave to steal them from the queen to bring them to Buckingham, so theycan be stolen from Buckingham, who does not even know, that he hasthem. Oy Vey! I'm loosing my mind again.The Milady is entrusted with that mission. As she is about to enter theantechamber leading to the queen's secret cabinet where the necklace ishidden, she pauses knowingly. Then she blows a white powder into theair to expose... Yes, they are there... otherwise invisible... thinstrings, like laser beams, hanging between the walls, that would,what... if touched, trigger an electronic alarm? Milady does not wantto risk it. She somersaults through the air like Catherine Zeta-Jonesin Entrapment, pirouettes, stretches in and out, under and over theobstacles, to so effortlessly reach for the necklace.Now they have to set their plan in motion.But I will not spoil for you the rest of this singular movie. You wantto see how Dumas foresaw a "Star Trek" expedition? You want to see howthe "Pirates Of the Caribbean's" ships battle originated? You want tosee a great amount of swordplay? You want to see the blood curlingRochefort? You want to see what happens to Milady when she fallswithout a parachute from an air ship cruising at a Boeing 787 altitude?Well, if you do, go and see it yourself.Strangely, I promised myself to enjoy the movie and I enjoyed it.

michael-dixon22

12 May 2012

A reasonable way of passing the time

If this film was meant as a bit of fun for just under two hours thenfine. After wearing my serious historical hat in vain for about 30minutes, I then settled down with this in mind. Trouble is no-one inthe very small audience even raised the quietest chuckle, so maybe theywere expecting something different all the way through?It is impossible to really analyse the acting skills too much becauseof the style of the film. That said I liked the portrayal of Louis,King of France, again for the laugh, while Orlando Bloom must havewatched countless Leslie Phillips films to perfect such a sound-a-likevoice. And he was playing the Duke of Buckingham.I thought the actress who played Milady was effective, but D'Artagnanwith his American accent and who was towered over by most of theothers, was very wooden. So too the beautiful blonde lady servant tothe Queen, whom he was casting eyes at for most of the film. To be fairshe was given little to say. Their chemistry did not exist. Poorcasting or poor acting or maybe both? As for the Three Musketeersthemselves well they did what they had to do with various degrees ofenthusiasm and at times who could blame them. Their rapport, shown atthe beginning of the film, soon evaporated when D'Artagnan arrived onthe scene and four was certainly a crowd here.The fighting scenes throughout were a cross between those true to thefencing, Jackie Chan and the Spanish Armada in the sky.Go to the cinema the day when the prices are lowest, don't expect toomuch and just treat it as a reasonable way of spending some spare time.

julesm28

11 May 2012

too many mistake...

I have no problem with the use of things that are obviously not a partof real history for entertainment value in movies. That being said Iwas disappointed in how they used the element of "Airships." I was withthem when the first one showed up, they had stolen the plans it was ayear later, fine I'll accept it. Then the second one showed up, again Iwas fine, I had figured Milady had played both sides and given theCardinal a copy of the plans, then they explained in the movie that iswhat happened. However, when a whole fleet of airships showed up at the end I was nothappy. The thought that in a year, in the 1600s no less, that a fleetof airships could have been built is just so ridicules that it isimpossible to even go with the flow of imagination. And Miladysurviving a fall from that height really only deserves a shake of thehead. Even with those issues I was at a solid 7 out of 10. It has some greatactors in it, it was funny, has great sword fightingÂ.. so why a 4 outof 10? I cannot stand it when the makers of movies can't even getsimple facts straight. The use of airships to me is fine that fallsinto the obvious departures from reality category. But then the otherthings of history should be factual. Using the palace of Versailles,horses and carriages, Louis XIII was king of France, he was married toAnne, all that is actual history. So I really don't understand why withan estimated $75,000,000 budget they couldn't figure out that the Spireon Notre Dame that impales the Cardinals airship during the finalbattle wasn't built until the 1800s, 200 years after the time period ofthe story. The review went from a 7 to a 4 because all I could think offor the entire last part of the battle was about how wrong it was.

olsta1976

10 May 2012

One for all and all for nothing

A disappointing adaptation of the Dumas classic.I think anyone over the age of 30 who still fondly remembers theMichael York and Oliver Reed 1973 classic will inevitably drawcomparisons and on all fronts this film comes a woeful second best.The dialogue is atrocious. The acting, with the exception of CristophWaltz, is wooden and unengaging. Even the CGi laden sword fighting,complete with 300 style slow mo, feels strangely out of place.There really isn't much to recommend this film to anyone who has an agethat does not end with the word teen.Do yourself a favour and watch the 1973 version online somewhere to seehow it should be done.

ChristopherJenzen

10 May 2012

WHAT? An adaptation that isn't an exact replica of books or films? The horror...

Lighten up. See the name of the director and gladly stay away or havecomplaints that aren't based on logic. "What would those wires trigger,an electronic alarm?" Eeh...no,bellsprobably... "How come Aramis can make a leap from that height withouteven twisting his ankle?" God damn it,wh...Well,the musketeers are solegendary and mythological,maybe it was time to have fun with andpresent these guys as something close to superheroes,which the sourcematerial in a way view them as,larger-then-life...fitting words forthis updated,laid-back version."Sophisticated" people,often say;You should read a book now and againinstead of just watching simple movies." In this case,I have toreply"Take the time to see a movie and view it as a movie instead ofjust reading books." Everything evolves(not always for better of course),that's everythingand just cause something's classic doesn't mean that it's gold. Dumas'sstories about his musketeers isn't Shakespeare,no metaphor for theafterlife,it's adventure with a splash of thriller plot-wise.Who wants to see the same film over and over with the only differencebeing the actors? Not me. Adapt or die... Most of the story is intact. Milady is still a double-agent,themusketeers still have their virtues and flaws.Dartagnan will still runinto a few men during a chase and challenge them all to duels and allwill show up at the same location and time and...it's silly. I said it.And that's from the book.It's not a film that stands still,there's chasing,slicing and goofingand we get crisp cinematography for once by Anderson,good camera-workand everything about the surface is beautiful....I DO feel like a lotof hate just comes based on Andersons resume;If you"know"movies,youshouldn't like this,hence judging and sentencing it from a biased view.The cast is mostly able and sufficient for this kind of easygoingentertainment. Walz doesn't reek of menace and evil,I hear ascomplaint...but what kind of Cardinal would that make? As he says"Evilis just a point of view" and lends a sophisticated,calm malice toRichelieu,who if we're honest looked a bit like a daft pedophile in TimCurrys flesh. Stevenson IS Porthos,Evans compensate lack of goodmaterial with charisma as Aramis and McFayden is funny as Arthos.Lehrman is certainly the weak link. Don't know his age but he looks 17tops and him challenging menacing villains and big heroes...doesn'treally work and you almost laugh. An androgyn actor.Jovovich,the directors wife,looks alright for 48:) but has way too muchscreen time and way too little range as an actress. Anderson shouldlearn to separate career from personal life,at times it's almost"DeWinters adventure".Bloom in the "controversial" role as the cunning and arrogantBuckingham gives a flamboyant performance to say the least and isenjoyable,though clearly over the top.Things simmer along with not thatmany things to get excited about or to complain about,a solid but toofamiliar adventure that doesn't put our protagonists in serious harmsway. Enter Mads Mikkelsen and TTT's most spot-on performance.As Rochefort,at times a thankless role,he again stands out and risesabove the material. The one-eyed captan is at his core far from acoward,which we will see but he wants results,quick,sees no point inhonor and is indifferent to how an adversary is beaten. A sleazy,coolbaddie worthy of walking in Lees and Wincotts footsteps. Every time hestrays from the narrative,things get a bit too harmless....and themovie is most fun when it strays actually,high in the sky. The third act raises The musketeers from a somewhat fun,somewhat hollow5 to a 7. In the end,I judge Andersons job here,not on his own meritscause then this is a masterpiece but for it's genre. It's a fast-pacedride with airships,300 slow-mo,a finale with a duel on a rooftop to amajestic score that despite weaknesses and changes(NOT the same thing)is well worth the watch. I don't think Dumas would be spinning in his grave even remotely,Ithink he'd pop up and say:"This was brave and fresh...slightly dumb butthank you for breathing new life into my work. I liked this."The reason for one character being welcome in a probable sequel andanother one not is slightly obvious and annoying though.

kirsten-tyson98

09 May 2012

an great film

The three musketeers has been a story for centuries & i thought it wasbrought back to life by this film.ever since i herd they were filmingfor it i couldn't wait to see at the cinema.it's a fast moving,engagingfun & cleverly juggles a big cast of characters within a prettycomplicated caper plot- the details of which you don't need to worryabout to much.especially when you can just watch Young Logan lerman,who is suitably charming & handsome & tousle haired, eagerly boundingaround surrounded by lush costumes & spectacular vistas. it's also niceto see James cordon having fun in the comic - relief role as themusketeers put upon servant.i really enjoyed the film i would recommend anyone to go & see it. iwish people would stop saying that its not a good film.

ws-dm

09 May 2012

Man Needs More Than Fig Leaves

What I noticed most in this movie was men.There were all kinds of men. There were two notably young men. Onewanted to be a Musketeer, one was nobility. Ecclesiastes 10: 16-17 cameto mind for the young king, Louis XIII. (Freddie Fox) "Woe to thee, Oland, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning!Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thyprinces eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness!" Theyoung king was a child.D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) was a youth. Luke 2:40-52 came to mind. WhenJesus was twelve, he and his parents went up to Jerusalem for the feastof the Passover. When Jesus' parents left Jerusalem after the feast,they assumed Jesus was in the group. They went a day's journey andrealized he was not among the group. They sought for him among thosewith them, and when they found him not, they turned back to Jerusalemseeking him.After three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst ofdoctors, both hearing them, and asking questions. All that heard himwere astonished at his understanding and answers. Jesus' mother said tohim, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and Ihave sought thee sorrowing." Jesus said unto them, "How is it that yesought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"Jesus was young, and he had awareness of his place in life, but what hedid contrasts young D'Artagnan. It goes on to say that Jesus' parentsunderstood not the saying Jesus spoke unto them. It then says, "And he(Jesus) went down to Nazareth, and was subject unto them..." We hear ofJesus coming into his public ministry at about the age of thirty. Laterin Hebrews 5:5-9, it says, "Though he were a Son, yet he learnedobedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, hebecame the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him..."Jesus learned to be in subjection. He learned to be in obedience evenwhen suffering to do so. To become a man, involves learning to be insubjection and under obedience. There was a period of years where Jesusincreased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. (Luke2:40,52.) Even Jesus had to wait and not come into certain positionsuntil due time.I saw a clergyman wearing robes of religion, yet, underneath werehidden aspirations and agendas. I saw "The Eminence" wantingpreeminence: holding out his hand for people to kiss his ring.Jesus said, "Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes,and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats, in thesynagogues, and the chief rooms at the feasts; which devour widows'houses, and for a show make long prayers: he same shall receive greaterdamnation." (Luke 20:46-47) Jesus also said, " Beware of falseprophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they areravening wolves." (Matthew 7:15) Revelation 13:11 says, "And I beheldanother beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like alamb, and he spake as a dragon." In other words, he looked like a lamb,but he was no lamb - looks can be deceiving - he spoke like a dragon;he was a dragon.Other men in the movie I took note of - one seemed to be the one menlaugh at and not laugh with. He appeared emasculated. Others were menin the king's court, or the lord's court - "Humpty, dumpty, sat onwall; humpty, dumpty, had a great fall; And all the king's horses, andall the king's men, could not put humpty, dumpty back together again."I thought of the preacher in Ecclesiates when he spoke of the sons ofmen: Vanity of vanities...all is vanity. There was a street scene andpeople were passing through. There were men sitting on the sidewalkwith their backs against a wall; they sat with what appeared to be ajug. They sat and probably took a swig as other men raced on by doingsomething; but, what? After all is said and done, vanity is vanity, nomatter what form it takes on.I noticed many men in this movie wearing many different types ofclothes; yet, they were still naked.Man needs more than fig leaves.

a-sowrd

08 May 2012

nice and fun

the three musketeers world looks like sherlock Holmes movie world ,there is fantasy and action .3d in these movie is perfect and better than a lot of 3d movies .there is some nice comedy , the story too is good , there is no onehero rule here but all of musketeers are hero's.10/10 for Milla Jovovich , I really likes here . maybe some did notlike movie because it looks fancy , but it relay worth to go and seeit. the three musketeers may be not the best movie in 2011 , it shouldbe from the top 10 . Especially in this time ( sep & oct ) there is fewgood movies..

zorro2a

07 May 2012

Poor

Well what a lot of hype for a load of nothing, this is a very pooradaptation of a great story, Logan Lerman (who) as D'Artanyen lookedlike a Sixteen year old doing a school play, the two brightest actorswas Matt MacFadyen as Athos, and Orlando Bloom in his best role to dateas the "baddie". Someone has already said that the Charlie Sheen/TimCurry version of a few years back is much better, with more action allthrough the film and not just in the last 20 minutes. And whats withall this 3D stuff, every film that comes out now is done in 3D, why, lsaw Three Musketeers in 2D as this 3D hurts my eyes and it adds nothingto the story, all the TV ads that have been on is very misleadingbecause it shows most of the action at the start or end of the film,it's a great pity l love this type of film and have been lookingforward to is for weeks, but what a let down.4/10

mtw-2

05 May 2012

Close but no Cigare

I should state up front that my favorite adaptation of the ThreeMusketeers was the 1973 version with Raquel Welch and Michael York. Ishould also add that the 73 Three Musketeers is one of my favoritemovies (top 100 anyway) of all time. I detested the 1993 Charlie Sheenversion and was looking forward to what I thought, from the fewtrailers I had seen (tried not to see too many), might be a betteradaptation in this version; and come on...3D right! This movie couldhave worked. Even with all of the ridiculous liberties that were takenwith the source material, there were moments of near greatness. Thefirst fight in St. Germaine was spectacular and on par with anything inthe 1973 version. It was marred only by the completely lacklusterdialog between D'Artagnan and Constance. Which turned out to be a sortof microcosm of the film as a whole. Each time they would start ascene, I would find myself thinking, OK, here we go, this scene isgoing well, and then some moron would murder the scene by either addingin some completely unnecessary dialog or some over-the-top visualcandy. I mean airships, in the Three Musketeers, really...I did mentionI didn't see many previews. The D'Artagnon - Rochefort fight near theend was good too; full of tension, back and forth, spectacular...untilyou remember that it is happening on the roof of Notre Dame (comeon...why) and that there is a burning airship in the background impaledon the spire.Still, good performances (of an extremely marginal script) did sort ofmanage to rescue the movie from time to time. As has been mentioned inmany of the other reviews, Porthos was very well cast and delivered byfar the best performance. Aramis too was well cast, though the scriptfailed to make good use of him. D'Artagnon was quite good. Logan Lermancaptured that same aura of naive idealism that Michael York deliveredto make the 1973 version so good. About 3 of my 4 stars can beattributed to that alone. I also found the performance of Freddie Foxas Louis the XIII entertaining and overall quite well done. Richelieuwas satisfyingly evil as well.Athos however, was somewhat weak in my opinion. Athos should becarrying most of the drama in this story, but I just felt like hisdramatic scenes didn't really work. It might have been the delivery,but more likely was the (at times) horrible writing and the lack of acoherent story arc around his relationship to Milady. There was just nodepth at all to that part of the story. Their interactions were stiffand the poor quality of their scenes was indicative of a lack ofcomprehension of the importance of those scenes to the overall tone ofthe movie. In short, watching them made me feel like everyone arrivedon set and said, "Ok, let's get this over with....and now we're movingon." Constance was just plain terrible. Both the script and theperformance were wooden, unbelievable and a terrible disappointment.My overall impression, "Come on, really?" They would have done so muchbetter if they had done a bit more work on the script and ignoredwhatever idiot was saying things like, "You know what would make thisscene better....more airships!"

chris-aldridge84

04 May 2012

Worst Musketeers Movie Ever!

So the other week I decided to watch the new version of the ThreeMusketeers because I have always liked the Musketeers. It was, to befrank, utterly deplorable, compared the story and the movies prior. Icouldn't even finish it. For one, somethings in it were highlyunrealistic for the time period. Flying technology did not exist, norwere people able to leap through the air and dodge things like in theMatrix. The fighting scenes were unrealistic whereas in the originalversion, the fights seemed more real and as if they could havehappened. The Uniforms of the Musketeers and especially the Cardinal'sMen were highly inaccurate and looked more like something out of afairytale. In the 1993 Three Musketeers and The Man in the Iron Mask,although King Louis is arrogant and spoiled, he is a strong leader. Inthe new version, King Louis seems more like a child who wants to playdress up. In conclusion, I wouldn't give this movie a half star rating.Throw it out. The originals are incredibly better.

Genres Movie

Most Popular

The Three Musketeers (LQ) Movie

Actors

Director

IMDB Rating

Year

Available Quality