Ohjaus:
Paul W.S. AndersonKuvaus:
Glen MacPhersonSävellys:
Paul HaslingerNäyttelijät:
Logan Lerman, Matthew Macfadyen, Ray Stevenson, Milla Jovovich, Luke Evans, Mads Mikkelsen, Christoph Waltz, Gabriella Wilde, Orlando Bloom (lisää)Suoratoistopalvelut (3)
Juonikuvaukset(1)
Kuuluisat muskettisoturit Athos, Porthos ja Aramis päätyvät epäonnistuneen operaation jälkeen Pariisin kaduille. Vuotta myöhemmin, seikkailunhaluinen D'Artagnan on kaupungin toivo uudeksi muskettisoturiksi. Yhdessä heidät lähetetään hoitamaan vaarallista tehtävää - heidän on estettävä Ranskan ja Englannin välinen sota. Klassinen draama kolmesta muskettisoturista perustuu Alexandre Dumas'n tunnettuun romaaniin. (MTV3)
(lisää)Arvostelut (10)
"Paul W. S. Anderson kunnioittaa nykyaikaisessa versiossaan tarinan henkeä ja pyrkii uudella tulkinnallaan lähestymään alkuperäisen teoksen rikasta kerrontaa." WTF? Nyt sain päivän naurut... Elokuvasta en. Leffa teineille, jotka eivät ole koskaan nähneet muita Dumas’n teoksen versioita tai lukeneet kirjoja, eivätkä aiokaan, koska vanhat elokuvat eivät ole niin siistejä kuin Transformersit ja kirjat ovat hikareita varten.
()
Paul W.S. Anderson refuses to grow up. Again on a small playing field (mainly Versailles and the Tower of London), with banal rules and a budget of tens of millions, he plays with a handful of action figures, each of which can be described with a single word (tough, novice, beauty…). The games and the playing thereof are constantly referred to directly in the film. The historical entrée is reminiscent of a board game, slightly larger soldier pieces fill the study of the cardinal (an again underused Waltz), whose favourite pastime is chess (the rooftop action scene with My Lady also takes place on chess-board tiles). The inconsistent structure of The Three Musketeers brings to mind a series of gradually more difficult missions that the protagonists have to accomplish by means of their own abilities (those who have played Commandos, for example, will know what’s going on before the London “level”). ___ The whole excessively dumbed-down plot, which after a moment's thought (which of course the characters don't bother with) could be resolved by counterfeiting a certain diamond necklace, is set in a reimagined version of the 17th century with airships, flamethrowers and other nonsense that makes a lot of noise and makes killing easier. The villains fall to the ground without any hesitation, like heads during the French revolution without spurting a drop of blood. Only during the fight between D'Artagnan and Rochefort do we see a few drops, probably so that we will fear for the well-being of the unlikable main protagonist. Based on his age and his struggle to get into the world of adults, it’s clear who the filmmakers’ target group is. Just like the makers of naïve action movies in the 1980s, they’re targeting young men who are looking for adult role models. The Three Musketeers is naïve already, but with one obvious change in the behaviour of the “apprentice”. The shift from a young protagonist who looks up to his more experienced role models with respect to a cheeky brat who despises authority (unfortunately) very aptly reflects the current arrogance of the young toward their elders. ___ The whole world of modern-day musketeers is adapted to gamers, usually pubescent geeks, as they are stereotypically perceived, i.e. as people who enjoy dumb, vulgar jokes and are grateful for any sight of a bare female limb. Here the titillating view of a lady’s leg, there a joke about the king’s effeminate behaviour, or the great need of a feathered friend. (Poetic license aside, a bird shits. Twice.) For adults, there are just absolutely hollow speeches about heroic deeds that must be performed. ___ After the action-packed prologue, the film nonsensically starts anew – it is necessary for everyone to regroup – of course with an interesting state of affairs when the need for heroes is revitalised (like in the recent Bond movies). But the screenwriters don’t offer anything more substantial than this hint, which also applies to the insinuated impossibility of trusting the powerful, before whom the protagonists bow their heads in the end anyway. Today there are so many possibilities of how to handle these four mythical characters...at least the gentlemen could have taken some inspiration from Sherlock. ___ Given the transparency of each of the intriguers’ intentions, the repetition of information is irksome. The film absolutely fails dramaturgically; the ending – when, instead of the expected grandiose action-packed climax (oh, that’s already been done?), we are given a feel-good dance number – seems like a fart in a bottle, to use the words of one of the characters. ___ Despite everything I’ve written here, I was entertained by The Three Musketeers. Less so than by Death Race, when Anderson didn’t have to take the age of viewers into account, but I was entertained. For the whole two hours. Thanks to the full use of the space (instead of excessive use of editing), the action scenes are clear and don’t assault the eyes with the same stylistic exhaustion as the dialogue scenes (during which the cameraman doesn’t know how to rotate around the characters and not repeat himself, so he repeats himself), the fight combos with Milla dressed in period costumes are irresistible and the thematically appropriate song under the closing credits (“When We Were Young” by Take That) was also pleasing. Perhaps I fit the stereotypical image of a gamer after all. 55%
()
(vähemmän)
(lisää)
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.
()
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.
()
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).
()
The Three Steampunk Musketeers or Anderson Saves Himself. It was starting to seem as if Paul W.S. Anderson would spend the rest of his life alternating between hastily made B-movies and ever more sequels of Resident Evil. But then came an adventurous spectacle that is everything a boy's moviegoing soul could have wished for. A celebration of courage, a showcase of inventions, an action-packed romp, and an ode to Milla Jovovich's legs (a well-deserved one). Most praiseworthy, however, is that Alexander Dumas isn't rolling over in his grave. The arrangement of characters, familiar plot twists, and the central message about friendship and loyalty – it's all here. Only the overblown metrosexuality of the French king might somewhat disrupt Dumas's peaceful slumber. But I'll gladly forgive that too. For some of us, we will be dreaming tonight about airships, swords, and Constance. Though not necessarily in that order.
()
Unlike most other users, I actually quite liked the 1993 version. If nothing else, it had quality action and a top-notch cast. But that’s the core of the problem, that version was a grandiose and high-budget production that had great ambitions but ultimately failed, as it did not meet the expectations of die-hard fans of the book and previous films. This current version has no ambitions, other than entertain, and the audience, for sure this time, did not expect anything at all – logically, they could not have been disappointed. If we truly look at it objectively, it is unbelievably off the mark compared to the source material. It is evident that the director disregarded all previous adaptations and made this one his own way. It is funny, the actors are good, and it doesn't lack traditional European action flair (fast-paced scenes, cuts), as well as a few adorable moments. I couldn't neglect the excellent Mads Mikkelsen, who always gives a worthwhile performance no matter the role. In terms of entertainment, it meets the standard, but in terms of art or any other film-making value, it falls 20 thousand leagues below par.
()
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?
()
The Three Musketeers is a visually beautiful and rich spectacle in which lovers of eye-candy will find their own. In terms of story and acting, however, it is pure average. I don't exactly do a double take on the pompous and arrogant Musketeer talk, of which there was a serious abundance. Of the actors, I was most impressed by the great Christoph Waltz as Cardinal Richelieu and the funniest character was Planchet.
()
"The Three Musketeers" are an absolute classic in both literature and creation. Some film adaptations are more successful than others, some are more serious, others funnier. When we were told that Paul W. S. Anderson would be making a new version, one started to wonder if Hollywood had gone crazy. The director, who is responsible for films like "Resident Evil" or "Death Race", didn't seem like an excellent choice for such a classic. It's not surprising, he's a director who handles action well, but the ability to breathe life into a classic, that was doubtful. And the result? The doubts were completely justified. Swords are used here for a maximum of five minutes, the rest of the battles are mostly done with the sounds of firearms. "All for one, one for all" is only said while drinking wine and they don't ride horses because it's quite unnecessary when you have an airship at your disposal. Milady de Winter, played by Milla Jovovich, is basically a disguised Alice from "Resident Evil" because the action moves she shows us seem to have been taken straight out of a zombie classic. Or from "The Matrix". And on top of that, we have Cardinal Richelieu, played by Christoph Waltz, who fences. The classic has been turned upside down and it has become a crazy Hollywood-style brawl. Dumas is turning in his grave and cursing Anderson, and I can calmly say that I will never watch this again. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/07/happy-feet-2-bobr-cislo-4-musketyri.html
()