hughhemington

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.

This documentary presents a broader background of the event than recent films, using contributions of people who were actually there. Unfortunately, the editor(s) chose to drown out the narration with background music and sound effects so that hearing the words of these heroes is next to impossible. If only there were some way to turn off the background noise completely.

It's sad that anyone would believe the stories of survivors of this pivotal historical event would need to be made more compelling with blaring noise. I have the utmost respect for every individual who persevered through that time and especially that event that went so wrong, but unexpectedly turned out so well. I have none for the talentless hacks that produced and edited this tragic waste of the opportunity to tell this story.

When I saw the reviews at that time (2.x) I assumed the film had to have some redeeming quality. People were put-off by history, or some group was slighted. No, those review numbers were really accurate. There was no review then, so people needed some warning.

The production is in color sort of, and it's generally in focus. So much for the good parts. The budget was obviously low or non-existent. It is quickly obvious that locations were chosen and used so that no set preparation would be necessary. The a... behavior of the people, was unconvincing in the extreme. When one of them is "shot in the leg", even that is not convincing, nor is his escape.

In the next scene, he has walked to a makeshift hospital tent. The doctor and nurse/helper have ended an exhausting shift, but there is one person outside the five-man tent needing attention. Just about the time you're wondering where the pile of bodies is, the man with the .57 caliber slug in his leg shows up, and soon, we're told he's lost a lot of blood, but none of the blood wound up on his pant leg. The production LITERALLY did not afford fake blood. Later on, they discover the formula, but none of it ever gets on the surgeon.

There are "cavalry" men of various names, and they say things, but no character is developed to anywhere near the point where you caring about anyone in the slightest. The movie does not attempt to fill in the "backstory" of any battle or tell a story with an arc or vector of any kind.