Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Nonureva Really Surprised!

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

RyanTheStoryteller When I first saw this movie in the theater I had just finished reading the book. If 16 year old me hadn't paid my hard earned $3.50 (wouldn't it be nice if that were still the price of movie tickets?) I would have walked out of the theater.I think that some time before this came out there must have been a law passed that stated that if you are going to make The Three Musketeers into a movie that you are not allowed to make it resemble the book in any way.If your whole concept of The Three Musketeers comes from this little farce than you really know nothing about this great story. The Three Musketeers is an exceptional piece of historical fiction filled with political intrigue, great heroes and sinister villains. What it doesn't have is an overabundance of slapstick jokes, "Porthos the Pirate," a wimpy Lady DeWinter, the nauseating overuse of the line "all for one and one for all" (they say it exactly one time in the book) or D'Artagnan being played by Chris O'Donnell. Shame on you Disney, shame. Watch the 1948 version starring Gene Kelly; it's a million times better.

Francisco Sousa Faria da Silva Personally, this is one of my favorite movies of all time. I'm not saying that it's the best adaptation (that still belongs to Richard Lester's musketeers) but this is the adaptation I like most with the Gene Kelly's version right next to it.There's something magical about this movie. I love the story (yes, it's a little bit different from the Dumas' novel), the actors, the costumes, the places, the colors, the music! Everything seems to fit well and in my opinion, the result is a wonderful adventure and romantic movie.There are some historical inaccuracies (the cardinal never wanted to overthrow the king) but as a viewer I can see myself transported to the 17th century. Michael Kamen's music is also another strong point and helps the viewers to travel to time period of the story.The movie has some good values to pass to young audiences. It deals with friendship, honor, courage, "all for one, one for all", injustice and righteousness.This was the version I grew up with alongside "The Man in the Iron Mask" (1998) and the 1987 anime version which is also a very good retelling of the classic (it took some liberties in the story as well).All in all, I love this movie and I can watch it over and over again and never tire of it. It came out right after the hype of "Robin Hood: The Prince of Thieves" (a great movie as well) and I truly believe that the people who made "The Three Musketeers", loved what were doing. That is what I feel when I see the movie.

ThatMOVIENut Athos (Keifer Sutherland), Porthos (Oliver Platt), Aramis (Charlie Sheen) and D'Artagnan (Chris O'Donnel) team up to battle the nefarious schemes of Cardinal Richelieu (Tim Curry) to usurp power in 17th century France. Now told under the name of Walt Disney Productions, and from the director of Bill & Ted and The Mighty Ducks, Stephen Herek.Although it may not the most accurate or layered adaptation of Dumas' tale, Disney's 90s version still offers a decent swashbuckler. This is down to a charismatic cast, special points towards the great Michael Wincott and his icy voice as the deadly Rochefort, alongside a wonderfully charming Platt as the bon-vivant Porthos, who provides the brunt of the comedy in the film with his hands-off lifestyle. Throw in some nifty and uncluttered sword fights shot with patience and grace instead of clumsy shaky cam, and even a playful yet also thrilling score by the late Michael Kamen, and these go a way to help out.However, don't expect a lot of the intricacies, extensive development and politics of the original story, or the self awareness of the more renowned Richard Lester films of the 70s. This as basic and lean a 'Musketeers' telling as you'll find anywhere. Plus, being a 90s Disney live-action film, it's super safe and predictable, even for a story as often told as this one. You can tell who's good, who's bad and what happens next right from the word go, thanks to often hammy performances from the support cast, as well as rather basic, rote dialogue.Regardless, as far as its brethren of that era go, this is one of the company's better live-action efforts amidst a slew of lame remakes and comedian star vehicles. If you may not be in the mood of the wilder hijinks of 'Pirates' or 'National Treasure', this should fit the bill just fine.

badajoz-1 Yes, there are liberties taken with the plot lines - the worst being Cardinal Richelieu thinking he could be King. But heyho Alan Rickman as Sheriff of Nottingham in Kev's 'Robin Hood' was trying it on the same, and had less chance than the Grey Eminence. Hollywood does take terrible liberties with European classics, just like Abe Lincoln, Vampire Slayer!!! The film is cheeky in tone, with plenty of swordfighting, derring do and love betrayed, but it does not quite shirk the state terror of executing Milady! The end is dragged out rather but the acting is pretty good and the storyline lollops along nicely. It is trying to emulate Dick Lester's version but comes up short against a really fine film that gets the balance of staying true to the book and getting plenty of laughs - remember Charlton Heston as Richelieu talking to Raquel Welch's husband played by Spike Milligan!!!!!!!!!! - Priceless. Enjoyable romp if you don't mind the changes to storyline and Tim Curry's overacting.