PDA

View Full Version : The Three Musketeers (2011)



Sophia
07-04-2011, 01:29 AM
The trailer (http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1451924505/) for this is on IMDb. It looks great fun. I hadn't heard about it, and assumed it was a simple remake when I saw the link -- but I was wrong! It's steampunk! Or perhaps clockpunk. :)

SirOtter
07-04-2011, 02:00 AM
Um...........no. I'd rather spend that two hours watching the Ritz Brothers version. Or even the Chris O'Donnell travesty. Bad enough to substitute flash for substance for a comic book movie, but for a classic? No, no, a thousand times, no.

BenPanced
07-04-2011, 03:48 AM
Oh, yay, more 360-camera tricks and slo-mo wire-fu.

BigWords
07-04-2011, 03:56 AM
Oh, yay, more 360-camera tricks and slo-mo wire-fu.

You forgot to mention 3D...

I would rather poke my eyes out with rusty spoons than watch another minute of the film. The trailer was bad enough.

Anna L.
07-04-2011, 08:03 AM
That concept would make a fun book. But a movie? Meh.

DavidZahir
07-04-2011, 10:23 AM
Looks like it could be fun. Might give it a look-see.

MikTal
07-04-2011, 07:45 PM
Sorry, but it looks like total shit. Cant believe that anyone would want to sit down and actually watch that. Trying way too hard for me.

BenPanced
07-04-2011, 07:53 PM
I feel sorry for the poor souls who get misled by this movie and are shocked to find out there's absolutely NO STEAMPUNK in the original novel.

scarletpeaches
07-04-2011, 07:54 PM
Who's in it? Any fodder? If not, ain't watching.

SP, got her priorities sorted.

atombaby
07-04-2011, 07:55 PM
Milla? I am so there. But I have my doubts, especially after reading the book and then watching the two versions out there. No doubt the older one was better, but both of them were not up to par. The only Dumas book-to-film that I actually enjoyed was Count of Monte Cristo, but even then, Hollywood could never capture the depth and details of any of his stories.

But Milla? Yeah, I'll check it out. And this kind of film fits Bloom, I'll have yet to see about the other actors.

scarletpeaches
07-04-2011, 07:58 PM
Having watched the trailer, I can hereby declare SP's verdict to be...

WHAT SHITE.

gothicangel
07-04-2011, 08:13 PM
I think SP has summed this one up. :)

I was looking forward to this, then I saw the trailer. I refuse to see this. I don't mind a bit of adapting, but flipping flying ships?

Is it me, or is the Duke of Buckingham a villian in this instead of the foppish lothario?

BenPanced
07-04-2011, 08:15 PM
Milla? I am so there. But I have my doubts, especially after reading the book and then watching the two versions out there. No doubt the older one was better, but both of them were not up to par. The only Dumas book-to-film that I actually enjoyed was Count of Monte Cristo, but even then, Hollywood could never capture the depth and details of any of his stories.

But Milla? Yeah, I'll check it out. And this kind of film fits Bloom, I'll have yet to see about the other actors.
There are more than two versions (http://www.imdb.com/find?s=tt&q=three+musketeers), counting various international releases, direct-to-video, animated and miniseries, so which "older" one are you gauging by?

1921? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0012752/)
1933? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024663/)
1948? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040876/)
1973? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072281/)
1993? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108333/)

atombaby
07-04-2011, 08:23 PM
There are more than two versions (http://www.imdb.com/find?s=tt&q=three+musketeers), counting various international releases, direct-to-video, animated and miniseries, so which "older" one are you gauging by?

1921? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0012752/)
1933? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024663/)
1948? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040876/)
1973? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072281/)
1993? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108333/)

The '73 I liked best of all, but I have to admit I haven't seen the 21 or 33. Don't get me wrong, I love Gene Kelly (and I was hoping he'd hop out with a version of 'Singin' in the Rain') but my opinions may be a little skewed for wanting more of Price than Kelly.

Mr. Anonymous
07-04-2011, 08:57 PM
if you ignore the fact that it's (supposedly) based on a book, the movie might offer some mindless fun.

dpaterso
07-04-2011, 09:29 PM
Looks like a bad trailer of what could be a fun movie. I'll start saving pennies for the DVD.

-Derek

scarletpeaches
07-04-2011, 09:30 PM
But but but...you're Scottish. Shoplift it, duh.

dpaterso
07-04-2011, 09:31 PM
Aw man, I've let my country down again. I feel shame.

-Derek

Zoombie
07-04-2011, 09:32 PM
Okay, I haven't watched the trailer. All I know is it's got Paul W. S. Anderson, the man behind the Resident Evil movies!

So, yeah, NO.

This movie is going to ssssssssssssuck.

gothicangel
07-04-2011, 10:36 PM
Sorry, still can't get passed the flying ships in 17th century France.

Zoombie
07-04-2011, 10:41 PM
I'm fine with adding things to classic novels to create something new and awesome...less okay with it still being CALLED the classic novel's title. Because you're not really making a Three Musketeers film, you're making a "inspired by the Three Musketeers, if it had steampunk and such" film.

I mean, did they call Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan "Moby Dick"? NO!

Lyra Jean
07-04-2011, 11:15 PM
It looks like a fun movie. I would see but on DVD only because actually going to the movies is so expensive.

Look at all the other movies based on books and how far flung they were but no one complained.

SirOtter
07-04-2011, 11:22 PM
There are more than two versions (http://www.imdb.com/find?s=tt&q=three+musketeers), counting various international releases, direct-to-video, animated and miniseries, so which "older" one are you gauging by?

1921? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0012752/)
1933? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024663/)
1948? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040876/)
1973? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072281/)
1993? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108333/)

The 1933 is not Dumas. It's a French Foreign Legion serial with John Wayne and Lon Chaney, Jr. It's not bad, for an early Mascot serial. They got better when they were absorbed by Republic in 1937, IIRC. Wayne made two more serials before John Ford rescued him from the B-movie lot in 1939 and made him a major star. Neither is as good as Three Musketeers, not that that's saying much.

There's also the 1935 version, memorable only for Paul Lukas as Athos, and the 1939 with Don Ameche and the Ritz Bothers. It's actually better than it sounds, since the Ritzes were cheapjack Three Stooges imitators.

The '21 is worth watching, although not Douglas Fairbanks' best film (that would be Mark of Zorro, The Thief of Bagdad or The Black Pirate, which was the first Technicolor feature, IIRC). Fairbanks is his usual ridiculously athletic self, doing with little effort or help from the special effects department what it takes an army of guys holding wires to make modern stars appear to do. Fairbanks could jump six feet straight up from a flat-footed stance. And, as Hedley Lamarr noted in Blazing Saddles, with very small feet.

Brindle MacWuff
07-05-2011, 12:55 AM
Oh, I'd get drunk and watch that shit. Probably twice.

dmytryp
07-05-2011, 01:03 AM
There are more than two versions (http://www.imdb.com/find?s=tt&q=three+musketeers), counting various international releases, direct-to-video, animated and miniseries, so which "older" one are you gauging by?

1921? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0012752/)
1933? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024663/)
1948? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040876/)
1973? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072281/)
1993? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108333/)
This (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076998/) one is pretty good and and a classic in the former USSR. The only major problem is that the musketeers are significantly older than in Dumas' novels.