Last Friday I was going to visit a friend of mine that works the Midnight shift. He wasn't awake yet (it was seven in the evening) so I decided to kill a bit of time and see a film. I had been warned away from this film by a couple of reviews on the site here but I decided to watch the film anyhow.

Bad mistake.

Two hours or so after entering this film I showed back up at my buddy's house nearly shellshocked. It took half an hour of nonsensical panning of a different film (regarding the presence of surgical tubing at a certain point of 28 Days, how the person obtained it, and the widespread presence of surgical tubing pushers--yeah I told you it didn't make sense) to recover enough to really be able to function again.

This film was awful. In every aspect I can think to analyze a film.


Ummm... The plot. Pretty much all of us know the general storyline of the original "The Three Musketeers." Young D'artagnon travels to become a musketeer, meeting three gentlemen by the names of Athos, Porthos, and Aramis. I suppose that much is true in this "reimagining" of the tale but gosh it isn't really very coherent.

Hmm...

In this version, D'artagnon's folks get killed by some evil guy by the name of Febre. D'artagnon (who is a kid at the time) wounds him but the guy doesn't notice that the young lad isn't dead after he stabs him (no real reason why he doesn't realize this).

Sooooooo...

D'artagnon grows up under the tutelage of some older fellow who is terribly ummm... Well... Supposed to be good at fighting and had taught D'artagnon's Dad how to fight (even though his Dad didn't seem to know how when he was killed).

And...

D'artagnon goes to town to...

Hmm... Here is where it becomes blurred.

...get revenge for his Father's murder? *
...become a Musketeer? **
...help the Musketeers? ***
...fight the Cardinal's (Stephen Rea) men? ****
...get into stupid tavern brawls for no real apparent reason? *****
...dance around like a whirling dervish and show off the latest trends in leather rags? ******
...hold stilted conversations with the local town... tavern wench (Mena Suvari) who somehow has the ear of the Queen (Catherine Deneuve)? *******
...for a passionate love affair with his... horse (not quite sure who played the horse)??? ********

Leftover remnants from the classic movies and stories cling to the plot of this one like the grist on last week's steak that you threw away but unfortunately the garbage man hasn't come to pick it up yet. I can recall why some of these plot fragments were probably thrown in the story from reading the book and seeing a few films on the story but gosh if I can say how a reimagination of these plot bits was really conceived and gone through with. It really, seriously barely made any real sense and the only reason that it made sense was because... Well... OK. It made no sense at all.

The dialogue was bad. I have seen 'B' movies with dialogue that was a whoooole lot better if just for the fact that they had some fun with it. This film tried to have fun dialogue but instead it was filled with one-liners that would have probably have been chucked out of the worst 'B' movie diatribe.

The acting was pretty awful too. Justin Chambers read his lines like he was... Well, reading his lines from the script right in front of him. Emotional content wasn't there and he sure wasn't into it too much either. He also didn't seem to have done any of his stunts!

I have heard people claim Mena Suvari did a great job in American Beauty. Well, I thought her acting in that was passable but also thought that she benefited more from a meticulous, micromanaging director in that film. No such person here. She plays the femme fatale like the town tramp distracted by hormones, taking up the screen as bad window dressing and emoting less than a table leg.

D'artagnon's teacher and mentor, I believe called Planchet (Jean-Pierre Castaldi), seemed to have been slated as comic relief in the same vein that many Frenchmen have done in the past (the only one I can recall at the moment is the one from The Patriot) but unfortunately his timing is as bad as the rest of the film (no memorable lines but I remember groaning whenever he opened his mouth).

Athos, Porthos, and Aramis were barely window dressing with only one of them getting any significant lines (which came off as fluently as someone who couldn't speak English reading the lines)) and I couldn't tell you which one it was. For characters that were the title characters from the original book, they have been relegated into thuggish drunks in awe of D'artagnon's skills. Blah.

The only actor that I can say I perhaps came out with some degree of respect for his ability after the film was Tim Roth who played the bad guy. His ability to blithely ignore what dreadful tripe he was spewing and the incredible awfulness of the rest of the film was nearly wonderous to behold! He even came off like he was enjoying playing a retread of every villain from any mideval film warmed over. I would think to be able to ignore the sheer dreadfulness of the film he was in required some intense concentration on his part. Unfortunately his part was as bad as the rest (regardless of his ability to ignore this).

The fight scenes were awful. I can point out perhaps two places that I kinda liked a particular shot but for the most part the scenes were really bad. The scenes were arrived at with such shallow contrivances that they lost any and all impact that they might have had from the surroundings and the scenes weren't terribly well done in the first place! The "legendary" choreography felt like it missed a few rungs, as if the guy in charge didn't know how to set the scenes up and just didn't have all of the aspects of doing these scenes down anyhow. It seemed as if the speed of the fighting was hyped up twice as fast so everything came out with blinding speed. They were hastily done, with the principles involved looking like extras and done from such a distance that you couldn't see what happened until you see the results. Yeah "blinding" might sound exciting but gosh I don't like being blinded!

Which brings up the cinematography. At points in the film I was literally blinded by flashes of cannons which lit up the whole screen. This might sound like a good idea on paper but imagine a film in which the lighting slowly gets darker and darker as you progress into the film (and acclimates your eyes to this darkness as if you were going into a cave) suddenly (at the end) flashing into total white. I was seeing spots for a couple seconds afterwards, my eyes recovered, and then they did it again! Sheer physical torture!

Even the small cinematographic aspects were done badly. When you were supposed to see D'artagnon giving his lady a necklace, we don't see the necklace until he has it nearly on her neck (and she brushes aside her hair to accomodate him without us seeing why). When we should be seeing swords in the fight scenes, the costumes get in the way (the same with daggers). When we should be seeing a nice view of the hero (like on the posters), people are in the way or he looks like he is a mass of leather streamers whirling around. Yeah he kinda looks cool in his leather duds but then he does something to distract us from that like moving or talking or... Something, ANYTHING! Basically the scenes snagged to put into the trailers are probably the only ones that they could have taken. Great editing job on those trailers and kudos to those that had such a tough job (except for the fact that they interested me and so I actually saw this).

Another thing done badly was the music. Basically it was par-for-the-course sort of music, the sort that soars to emotional highs in the appropriate parts but it clashed so badly with what was actually happening in the film that it was ludicrous. D'artagnon decides to trounce on some guys that were annoyed at an urchin stealing their food and *bling* up jumps the music in corney, resounding tones, foreshadowing that this is supposed to be some big noble cause. It starts up seconds before the action actually starts and punctuates the action with corney highlights that accented the fact that I had absolutely no emotional commitment to the film. The sound effects did the same sort of thing, inserting loud clonks (audibly bad) and sword chings where it wouldn't have been really necessary if the action/cinematography had been even moderately bad (instead of terribly bad).

This film would probably be a great one to show in film classes as an example of what not to do in terms of plot coherence, story, backstory, adaption, cinematography, choreography, dialogue, acting... The list goes on and on! It is amazing how totally they fried everything that they were trying to do with this film! In fact these fledgling films students are the only people that I would recommend this film to.
PAY ATTENTION! THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T DO WHEN MAKING A MOVIE!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!


Postscript
OK, what the heck.
I feel like explaining how the film's obscure twists relate to the book. Bear with me a bit because I haven't read the book in a few years... Feel free to correct me if my memory isn't quite accurate (and note I read a version of "The Three Musketeers" that was pretty old--not sure if it differs from abridged versions...)

From the first one to the last:

* To begin with, I sure can't recall any sort of Father/Mother revenge riff in the story. Perhaps it was in the previous films but it feels tacked onto this particular film.

** D'artagnon does travel to join the Musketeers in the book but in the film it doesn't come off like that.
We get some slight glimmerings to that effect but basically the Musketeers are in shambles when D'artagnon arrives and for the most part the only purpose they serve is as glorified cheerleaders.

*** D'artagnon does fight to preserve the honor of the Musketeers in the book but it sure is confusing what his motivation is in the film. In the book the Musketeers have quite a bit of foppish prestige and so joining them seems almost akin to joining the nobility or at least the upper class. They are also fiercely loyal to the King and perform some perilous tasks because of this loyalty (or at least loyalty to the Queen).
In this film though, the Musketeers get together, get drunk, and play dagger throwing. A little interesting but it seems as if D'artagnon could do this just about anywhere. It destroys the esprit de corps that was present in the novel while replacing it with the revenge shtick. The lack of genuine comradery destroys what emotion would have been evoked by the classic "All for one and one for all" line in the film and that the big battle scene at the climax would have generated.

**** In the original book the Musketeers do fight the Cardinal's men. It is initially shown as a sort of honor-filled rivalry (which unites D'artagnon with Athos, Porthos, and Aramis against a common enemy) but then proceeds a bit further. We don't exactly see the start of the rivalry but we do see results.
Here it is more of a slightly off-kilter (no real motivations provided properly except a poorly-staged assassination towards the beginning) plot sort of thing.

***** In the book D'artagnon actually does get into fairly pointless fights on somewhat obscure points of honor and proceeds to challenge each of the Three Musketeers to a duel right when he gets to town. It is a fun sequence in the book and serves to characterize D'artagnon as a bit of a hothead.
Here the initial tavern sequence seems pointless because D'artagnon seems to have no motivation (Saving an urchin from a romping? Pallid motivation at best.) With some sort of displayed rivalry between himself and the Cardinal's men established then this might have made more sense and we might understand the motivation. In this film though, it just comes off as...??? Like I said, the plot doesn't make sense.

****** D'artagnon's initial success at fighting in the book is attributed to enthusiasm (as well as some skill).
Here he is just this fighting machine. Interesting but with no real sense that he can be defeated, his skills elicited not a whole lot more excitement in me than watching a weedwhacker work.

******* D'artagnon does have an affair in the book with a servant with connections with the Queen (and eventually goes on a mission for the honor of the Queen). This had a whole lot more purpose and definitely more style though (I believe that she was a noblewoman).
Here... Well... tavern wench is being kind.

******** D'artagnon's horse in the book actually was unusual, as was his attachment to it. It was actually a strange colored pony which was his inheritance from his father (I believe). D'artagnon sold it to finance his living quarters. This seemed like a storyline that was basically just thrown into the book and the pony isn't mentioned again (it sounded like a cool pony). I was a bit disappointed.
In the film though... Ummmm... I could care less about the horse and D'artagnon's attachment to it is puzzling at best.


Recommended:
No

Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age