Los tres mosqueteros de Alejandro Dumas

This is a very ordinary version of The Three Musketeers. Film versions of classic novels should at least bear some resemblance to the plot of the novel from which they are adapted, even if they are just pot-boilers intended for a family audience like this one, and not meant to be taken too seriously. But this is a very loose adaptation indeed.

The acting is just up to the level required and the dialogue is a mix of pseudo-17th century and contemporary Americanisms which fail to convince the viewer that he/she is watching a picture set in 17th century France. Though the production is quite a handsome one, with the sets, locations, and costumes all nice to look at, the characters are not well-drawn, in particular those of Cardinal Richlieu, portrayed as an out and out villain, admittedly enjoyably, but with little depth, and D'Artagnan who is played as naive, arrogant and pompous and not as a particularly likable character.

Other comments stress that this is a Disney picture made for the family, but that should not save it from criticism. Compare it with Disney's Treasure Island, or Kidnapped, both much superior adaptations. Nor have they helped children understand the novel. Because it is so loosely based they would hardly recognise it as The Three Musketeers if the characters' names had been changed, though I do agree that film adaptations don't have to follow the source novel absolutely faithfully.

But is it entertaining? Yes and no. The villains are hiss-able, Aramis, Arthos and Porthos are sometimes entertaining, despite the questionable dialogue they are given, and Richlieu, though often over the top, has his moments. The action scenes are OK but not done with any great verve compared with the Richard Lester version. Milady does not feature as a really central character in the plot as she should and in fact many of the novels' characters do not appear in the film at all.

Read the book and see the 1973 version and forget this one if you are over 16.

This film is but a true fun adventure. It's not to be taken absolutely serious. Nor a direct adaption of the classic book. Has quite notable performances by Kiefer Sutherland, Michael Wincott, Rebecca De Mornay, Gabrielle Anwar, and Paul Mcgann. The cinematography as well is noteworthy, two shots that stand out, that i always use in compilations, the shot of them riding across the plains, and when they charge the castle at the end, with an army of musketeers behind them; always takes my breath away. This is a fun movie! Watch for an escape of reality.

I not only liked this movie, but I feel a need to defend it and the Walt Disney company.

Walt Disney movies are notorious for plot changes. Almost no movie touched by them is safe from this process. From cartoon production to live action films, any adaptation by Disney is going to have plot changes to suit there vision of the final product. For example, their cartoon The Sword in the Stone bears almost no resemblance to the original story of King Arthur.

To say that Disney does not stick to the original plot is like saying an elephant does not ride a bicycle. It is obvious, even before you see it, that this is not going to happen. This is why they are adaptations. The definition of adaptation is "The condition of being made suitable to an end." Disney sets what they want the end product to be and adapt the story line to meet that goal. They did, however, remain close enough to the original story line that one who had not read the original might be intrigued enough to do so.

This movie was made for one reason... to entertain. Sure money was a motive, but if it does not entertain, it does not make money. And, as with most Disney adaptations, if you approach it with the understanding that liberties have been taken, it not only can entertain, but can be downright enjoyable as well. Disney will never fully stick to an original story line for any adaptation they produce. This is how they make it "theirs". This is how they give it that twist that a lot of people have come to expect from a Disney film. And once this IS expected going into the movie, you can watch it in the spirit in which it was released.

And remember this, the cast all had the opportunity to read the script BEFORE they agreed to make the movie. If they had any qualms about the quality of the writing, you can be assured they would not have put their reputations on the line.

Lightheaded and lighthearted this is the definition of escapist entertainment and that is meant as a compliment. Something to watch when you want to relax and not have to think about the plot of the movie.

Chris O'Donnell is impish if a bit callow in the lead but the real show is musketeers anyway and there is where the movie excels. Keifer is suitably brooding as Athos and Charlie Sheen, before he became a surly twitchy mess, is a charming Aramis. The standout however is Oliver Platt going full on ham as Porthos giving a delightfully over the top performance and walking off with the picture whenever he is on screen.

Rebecca De Mornay also seems to be having a good time enacting the villainous Milady de Winter, she's sexy and silky. Lastly there is Tim Curry positively consuming the scenery as Cardinal Richelieu, in his flowing red robes he and Oliver Platt are in a dead heat for biggest scene stealer.

The production is high class with vibrant with color and beautiful settings, true it bears only a passing kinship with the source book but it is a fun time with lots of action and a carefree mood.

Nope, it's by no means an accurate adaptation of Dumas' original work. Umm, does nanyone really care? Dumas' plot, while interesting in and of itself to many, is probably not one that many folks who think of "the Three Musketters" could actually _tell_ you.

This movie sets out to more or less capture the feel of such films, rather than the source material itself. In that regard, it's not too badly done. The characters are pretty broadly drawn, but adequate for the younger audience they're aimed at. Sutherland, Platt, and Sheen all seem way too young, but at least the first two are entertaining. Platt in particular manages to steal every scene he's in.

By the same token, Richelieu's character is simplified to "generic bad guy." The King and Queen seem too young as well (although they're represented age may be novelistically and/or historically accurate - again, could most folks really tell you, or care?).

Overall, I'd recommend the movie for some light entertainment, but don't take it too seriously.