The Fourth Musketeer

This movie promised so much but ultimately disappoints.

Very poorly choreographed fight scenes. Bad direction. Average acting.

Its a very slow film that doesn't actually go anywhere. It is nowhere near as good as any single episode of the TV show from 2014 to 2016. These were very well written and directed and had top quality fight scenes. Obviously the director of this movie did no research before creating this mess!

What a waste of a budget and my time!

Acting and producción.

Very poor in all spects.

Both in production and acting. The title is the perfect hook for thousands of options but they limit the entire movie to closed spaces that make this movie worthy of a school play. Definitely a waste of time.

Production companies are constantly racking their brains as to what they can offer the viewer any time soon. In itself, this is not a problem, I think, as a European who sees high quality in American film. And that is in the convincing scenes of really good actors and, of course, the set design, that is, the scenery itself. They are always realistic portrayals.

Unfortunately, this does not always apply to the genre and the storytelling. Themes like the musketeers were transported very well many years ago. A remake like this is basically an insult. Because one believes to bring the spirit of the times into the given modernity. Which can succeed, if it is transposed to sci-fi level, for example. Light sabers and light swords are not an invention of George Lukas, they existed in comics decades before. That's what someone like me would like to see. The four musketeers in the year 2500.

This movie is not worth the production costs.

This movie was odd and disappointing for me, having grown up watching one treatment after another of Dumas classic tale, done with acting, action, and a PLOT. This 2022 adaptation couldn't seem to get off home plate. There are FAR too many d'Artagnans for one thing. We're told d'Artagnan (the "main" one) has practiced with the toy sword his whole life, but all we see is him whacking lamely at a grain sack.

The cast is small for a theme usually swarming with cast and extras. The scenes are all shot in close narrow angle which is quickly distracting. The "main" d'Artagnan serves 2 years in the academy (we assume) but returns to his father clearly not a day older when any young man of 18 would change quite a lot in two years -- even a High School production would exploit this easy opportunity to reinforce the idea of time and character development!

I can say, the costumes were not bad, and I didn't notice any jet aircraft or automobiles, but I can't think of any reason I'd recommend this to anyone.

Alexandre Dumas's "The three musketeers" is a perennial classic with an amazing story, adapted for the screen in different countries and languages. I've never seen a bad version and couldn't imagine a British production not doing it justice. And how wrong I was!

The idiots (it must be a whole bunch of people, not only the director) turned Monsieur de Tréville into Trévillé, i.e., pronounced "trevileh". Then the actors are totally miscast: Milady was given an annoying Spanish accent, fast talking and impossible to believe in a seduction scene. Among the musketeers the worst miscast is Porthos, who was supposed to be extremely strong. Instead the actor impersonating him is smaller than the other two musketeers and with bad teeth. Rochefort is given a lisp (or is this specific to the actor?). D'Artagnan's father is meeting his son after not seeing him for two years in the same position - at the table - as when he was giving him a speech before he left for Paris. There is no single view of a Paris street, all scenes are filmed inside (with the exception of the duel which is placed in a nondescript backyard) in exactly the same setting (meeting with Treville, father-son discussion, etc). Done on the very cheap.

The action reaches up to one tenth of the novel (the duel with the Cardinal's guards) and then stops brusquely, making me for a moment believe the movie was actually part of a series.

So bad ... I cannot believe some investors put their money in this film. The director should be banned at least for ten years ...

PS What I cannot understand is how the movie can have an overall rating of over 4 when there is no individual rating over 3? The real rating, taking into account the reviews, should be slightly above 2.