In the early 70's many of the same actors made one excellent and a second really good but not quite excellent fun action film based on Dumas' classic stories with a small amount of fairly inaccurate history thrown in. By this film history is completely gone as is any relation to Dumas' book other than the characters. This film is based on the concept of aging musketeers. It is a funny concept, but just doesn't carry a film. The same gag, guys who can't do it anymore, gets old pretty quickly, and it then it just isn't fun to watch. There is a reliance on things like dwarfs being funny to look at, and elaborately silly hidden panels and such, funny costumes, and Mel Brook-ish humour and funny accents in very poor rhythm with the plot line. The move between gags and the plot is just plain jarring. It is intended as a parody of the first two films--a lovely idea in concept--but it would work as a 15 minute skit, not a feature.
Part of why it worked was the quality of the stars with the three central characters (not in order of billing) (of the film) D'Artagnon, Cardinal Richelieu, and Lady De Winter being played by Michael York, Charleton Heston and Faye Dunaway. Chareleton Heston and Fay Dunaway do not return to this film and they are very missed. Kim Catrell plays the Faye Dunaway role (as her daughter) and lovely though she is, she just is not close to the actress that Dunaway was. Dunaway managed to be really be scary and sexy (Think Vagina Dentata as a surprise to a lover kind of feeling). And Heston, crazy gun coot that he was then, was pretty scary in a fun way too. The actor in his role just is not very convincingly malevolent. Also missing from this cast is Raquel Welch, playing the dumb, funny gorgeous sexpot (against Dunaway's scary, super-intelligent sociopathic sexpot).
Given the quality of the original two films, and how mediocre the script for this is, I am surprised the rest of the major players returned: Christopher Lee (great in all), Oliver Reed (playing a drunk--big surprise), Geraldine Chaplin (her role is larger and Much more poorly written--she is not a comedienne), and Richard Chamberlain. All wonderful actors but poorly used in this film.
There is a young love interest couple: OK I've mentioned it exists.
Finally, Michael York was rivetingly sexy in the first two films. In 1974 he was 32 and played an 18 year old quite convincingly. In 1989 he was 47 playing a 47 year old who appeared to be 30. He was still fun to watch, but I think he kind of dumbed-down his physical grace, where as the other musketeer actors clearly couldn't run (ya know in real life) couldn't run more than four or five steps. Oliver Reed and Richard Chamberlin did still sizzle a bit in 1974 but by 1989--nada in the sexy pants division for these two. Like Chaplain, comedy is not their forte. This has no credible dramatic elements. They are not enjoyable to look at, so it doesn't leave lots for them to add.
Oh yeah, don't confuse this with the Disney Three Muskateers film made in the 90's. It is almost unwatchable.
--
I noticed from someone else's review that an actor known in the UK for physical comedy actually was killed doing a horse stunt, and that partly accounts for folks in the UK likely this film more than folks in the US. It always seems awful when you read someone dies making a film doing a stunt. It is especially dreadful when the film comes out to be mediocre like this one.
I gave this a five, meaning fair. An unfortunate thing about this site is that if you actually watch a film, you rarely really hate the film--at least if you are watching it on video. So my evaluation of 5 really does mean fair, but a film that has an average of 5 on this site is generally truly rotten.
Part of why it worked was the quality of the stars with the three central characters (not in order of billing) (of the film) D'Artagnon, Cardinal Richelieu, and Lady De Winter being played by Michael York, Charleton Heston and Faye Dunaway. Chareleton Heston and Fay Dunaway do not return to this film and they are very missed. Kim Catrell plays the Faye Dunaway role (as her daughter) and lovely though she is, she just is not close to the actress that Dunaway was. Dunaway managed to be really be scary and sexy (Think Vagina Dentata as a surprise to a lover kind of feeling). And Heston, crazy gun coot that he was then, was pretty scary in a fun way too. The actor in his role just is not very convincingly malevolent. Also missing from this cast is Raquel Welch, playing the dumb, funny gorgeous sexpot (against Dunaway's scary, super-intelligent sociopathic sexpot).
Given the quality of the original two films, and how mediocre the script for this is, I am surprised the rest of the major players returned: Christopher Lee (great in all), Oliver Reed (playing a drunk--big surprise), Geraldine Chaplin (her role is larger and Much more poorly written--she is not a comedienne), and Richard Chamberlain. All wonderful actors but poorly used in this film.
There is a young love interest couple: OK I've mentioned it exists.
Finally, Michael York was rivetingly sexy in the first two films. In 1974 he was 32 and played an 18 year old quite convincingly. In 1989 he was 47 playing a 47 year old who appeared to be 30. He was still fun to watch, but I think he kind of dumbed-down his physical grace, where as the other musketeer actors clearly couldn't run (ya know in real life) couldn't run more than four or five steps. Oliver Reed and Richard Chamberlin did still sizzle a bit in 1974 but by 1989--nada in the sexy pants division for these two. Like Chaplain, comedy is not their forte. This has no credible dramatic elements. They are not enjoyable to look at, so it doesn't leave lots for them to add.
Oh yeah, don't confuse this with the Disney Three Muskateers film made in the 90's. It is almost unwatchable.
--
I noticed from someone else's review that an actor known in the UK for physical comedy actually was killed doing a horse stunt, and that partly accounts for folks in the UK likely this film more than folks in the US. It always seems awful when you read someone dies making a film doing a stunt. It is especially dreadful when the film comes out to be mediocre like this one.
I gave this a five, meaning fair. An unfortunate thing about this site is that if you actually watch a film, you rarely really hate the film--at least if you are watching it on video. So my evaluation of 5 really does mean fair, but a film that has an average of 5 on this site is generally truly rotten.