The Three Musketeers

Subjectively, the film fulfills everything you imagine in the phrase "The Three Musketeers directed by Paul Anderson," in a wholly positive sense. The trailers promised that it would be a blast. The inventive action combined with a superb cast, where everyone enjoys their role to the fullest, brings smiles of satisfaction to the audience’s faces. However, there are issues in the passages without any action, where perhaps it's not so much the gibberish dialogue that bothers us, but rather the fact that it has no pizzazz and lacks even the slightest bit of unpredictability. This means that you’ll simply know that Lerman will be a (likable) brat until the end and that the main three characters will be serving up catchphrases even if airships are falling from the sky. I'm not disappointed, I just think Anderson needs a tighter dramaturgical whip on him, and then he'll serve up one Death Race after another. :) 3 ½. (02/09/2012)

Three steampunk musketeers or Anderson saves himself. It seemed that Paul W.S. would spend the rest of his life alternating between hastily made B-movies and more and more sequels of Resident Evil. But then came an adventurous spectacle that is everything a boy's viewer's soul could wish for. A celebration of courage, a showcase of inventions, an action-packed ride, and an ode to Milly Jovovich's legs. Well-deserved. The most praiseworthy thing, however, is that Alexander Dumas doesn't have to rotate in his grave. The arrangement of characters, familiar plot twists, and central message about friendship and loyalty - it's all here. Perhaps only the overshot metrosexuality of the French king slightly disrupted peaceful sleep. But I'll gladly forgive that too. For some of us, today will be all about airships, swords, and Constance. Not necessarily in that order. (02/03/2013)

These Three Musketeers are something completely different than you would expect. And that’s actually a good thing. After all, what good would it do me to watch the same story over and over again, just with different actors? This story is always taken very seriously not only from a historical point of view and at times gets quite romantic. Anderson took the originally story, fucked around with it, gave it a thrashing, abused it and this is the result – a completely zany ride which makes no sense whatsoever but entertains. And that’s the most important thing. You must take it as entertainment, not as a historical tale. Then it works, and rather well at that. The actors also understood this and I must say that I had quite a good time with them. I laughed and got to see the musketeers as a bonus. (12/03/2012)

In his modern interpretation, "Paul W. S. Anderson honors the realities of the story and intends his modern rendition to approach the narrative quality of the original literary work." I laughed again at the official distributor text. I will admit, though, that these Three Musketeers are better the second time around than the first time. The second time around, I knew what to expect - unprecedented, but quite entertaining stupidity with airship fights, action scenes that beat anything from Anderson's Resident Evil, likable heroes and beautiful cleavage... namely women. Why not? (02/19/2012)

A little more sophisticated Uwe Boll, which unfortunately doesn't change the fact that a grave robber like Paul W.S. Anderson should never have come close to such a substance. Moreover, this mixture of clumsy borrowings of pirate playfulness and Ritchie cunning is completely walled off by the director's inability to come up with anything stylishly consistent. Some of the shots of Milla Jovovich suggest that Paul is probably henpecked at home. I understand that it's nice to show how his wife is still the same thunderous female at a more advanced age, but unfortunately Anderson proves that he, too, is still the same dumbass at his age. Two just for Mads, who (again) has no eye and is demonic (again). (10/18/2011)