Plot isn't any different than all the others. The only thing that is different is the action. There are more sophisticated fight scenes. It was made to be 3D, but I saw it in 2D. Maybe the plot was better in 3D. They keep the girl alive even though she is supposed to die. Had to see it because of Ray Stevenson. All in all, I say: RENT IT.
According to IMDb Denmark released this animated version in 2005. All in all, I say: SKIP IT
Dumas wrote this classic set in the 17th century and since then it has been made into numerous movies.
Amazon writes, "Set in the 17th century, it recounts the adventures of a young man named d'Artagnan after he leaves home to travel to Paris, to join the Musketeers of the Guard. D'Artagnan is not one of the musketeers of the title; those being his friends Athos, Porthos and Aramis, inseparable friends who live by the motto "all for one, one for all", a motto which is first put forth by d'Artagnan. In genre, The Three Musketeers is primarily a historical novel and adventure. However Dumas also frequently works into the plot various injustices, abuses and absurdities of the ancien regime, giving the novel an additional political aspect at a time when the debate in France between republicans and monarchists was still fierce. The story was first serialized from March to July 1844, during the July monarchy, four years before the French Revolution of 1848 violently established the second Republic. The author's father, Thomas-Alexandre Dumas had been a well-known general in France's Republican army during the French revolutionary wars. Although adaptations tend to portray d'Artagnan and the three musketeers as heroes, the novel portrays less appealing characters, who are willing to commit violence over slight insults and through unquestioning loyalty to the king and queen, and treat their servants and supposed social inferiors with contempt and violence.". All in all, I say: READ IT
After the success of Young Guns, Sheen and Sutherland went straight in to making this movie based on the book. It was a fun 90s movie. All in all, I say: SEE IT
In this 70s version of the film - Chamberlain (Thorn Birds) and Welch (CPW) do a decent job. It was a fun 70s movie. All in all, I say: SEE IT
In the 60s BBC - UK - came out with a tv series - I think it was more origin story rather than the book made into a series. I never saw - All in all, I say: SKIP IT
Now we are talking classic Hollywood with this 40s version starring Kelly (Singing in the Rain) and Turner (Peyton Place). All in all, I say: SEE IT
This 30s version is also fun - I always think fun when I think of this book and following movie. Ameche (Cocoon) stars in this, and I say: SEE IT
This was also in the 30s and it kind of a modern - like more modern than 17th century - version - loose version of the book. Mainly it's the characters. All in all, I say: SKIP IT
This 30s version is the one you want to see - it a true film based on the book. All in all, I say: SEE IT It's a talkie.
In 1921 Hollywood made this silent, black and white version. I have only seen clips in a film class. All in all, I say: SEE IT if you like old films.
No comments:
Post a Comment