Tuesday, March 20, 2012

The Three Musketeers (2011)

***DISCLAIMER*** The following review is entirely my opinion. If you comment (which I encourage you to do) be respectful. If you don't agree with my opinion, that's fine. To each their own. I am just sharing my opinions and perspective. Finally, the reviews are given on a scale of 1-5. 1, of course, being terrible. 2, being not great. 3, being okay. 4, being good and 5, being epic!

The Three Musketeers (2011) - 3 out of 5

One for all and all for one--actually in the world of The Three Musketeers is probably should be "one for all and all for the money as they once again make another Three Musketeers film."

Can't afford John Cusack for your film?  Make your actor look like him instead!

When I first saw this trailer...this one...


I thought, "Oh boy, another film about the Three Musketeers" with a heavy dose of sarcasm.  I followed it up with, "And, of course, it is in 3-D."  Now, mind you, I don't hate 3-D--actually, I enjoy it.  The depth 3-D provides in a theater experience only assists, in my opinion, in immersing a viewer into the world you are watching.  Added to the fact the cameras used to film in the third-dimension are incredible from a technical standpoint.  Their ability to capture even the slightest movement from actors and scenery makes me believe that ALL films should be filmed this way--even if they aren't even viewed in 3-D.  Even legendary filmmaker Martin Scorsese has confessed his love for the art of 3-D filmmaking while making Hugo.  The only drawback I had with this particular film being in 3-D was it was an obvious attempt at trying to distract the audience from realizing the story has been told before and told a lot better.

"Why is the water warmer here--HEY!!!"

I know I sound scathing right off the bat, like I hated the film going into it but that's not true.  In fact, I was mildly entertained by it and was surprised by it, as well.  Going into it, my expectations were for a completely phoned it, "get-in, get-the-cash, get-out" summer action film but what I got was not a complete waste of my time.

The smile of a man who won't admit that he either smelt it or dealt it.

The look of the film is fresh and bright and works well against the action of Athos, Aramis and Porthos kicking ass and taking names and a majority of the stars within did their job well.  However, the film is far from polished.

To think, this man; Mads Mikkelsen, was once fighting James Bond...
Now he's in a Paul W. S. Anderson film.

"A curse on your eyes, sir, for cutting mine ship off."
I think that's how they curse back then.
The action is basic, for lack of a better word.  The fight scenes lack a signature presentation and feels like a crash course called Fighting 101.  The action sequences will neither disappoint but they won't "wow" you either.  Despite the fact that Matthew Macfadyen, Luke Evans and Ray Stevenson are great as Athos, Aramis and Porthos (respectively) you, sadly, have to deal with Milla Jovovich's usual overacting as she takes on the role of Milady.  But it's no doubt she's in here because Resident Evil director Paul W.S. Anderson made this one.  Then, to top it off, D'Artagnan (played by Logan Lerman) is being played with an American accent.  A little distracting for a film based in France.

Couldn't afford a better wig for the man in the back?

Then you have Orlando Bloom, who can't quite seem to live up to his performance as Legolas (luck for him he's returning for The Hobbit), plays the Duke of Buckingham but looks more like he's about to start a glam-rock synth-band that covers all the hits from the 80s.  Even more heartbreaking is seeing Christoph Waltz follow up his Oscar win for his amazing portrayal as Col. Hans Landa in the amazing Inglorious Basterds to play Richelieu.  While his performance isn't bad, the sad thing is he's barely in it.  Did the filmmakers not see Waltz perform like a boss as the Nazi in Quentin Tarantino's World War II epic?  Apparently not.

"We cover a lot of David Bowie's later stuff and some of Wham!'s greatest material..."

The Three Musketeers isn't the best but not completely terrible either.  The special effects are questionable as the cast choices and action sequences but, for the most part, it kept my interest the entire run.  The story is familiar but well told, however, it's not going to go down as the best telling of the age-old story of the Musketeers.  But, then again, it was directed by the man who gave us the remake of Death Race, so did we really expect excellence?

1 comment:

  1. Milla Jovovich's usual overacting? In a movie that takes a literary classic and adds in the P.S. Anderson video game cut scene vibe is that a bad thing? The fact she can bring a certain corny coolness to the role THROUGH her self-aware over-the-top-ness and hit every mark beautifully is what makes her outshine Waltz, not just screen time. She's in her (fifth) element, he is not (too good for this movie? perhaps. but still a tad out of place.) Overall I agree, not a TERRIBLE film... just good fun.

    Still, their one scene together had me wishing I was watching Leeloo have a conversation with Col Hans Landa, and not whatever their characters in this movie were talking about.

    PS I hope Ray Stevenson (one of the three dudes) gets better roles in the future...

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.