Skip to Content

MOVIE REVIEW: "The Three Musketeers" (2011)

Republibot 3.0's picture

A week or two ago, Republibot 1.0 (My boss) reviewed "The Three Musketeers." (You can read it online here http://republibot.com/content/movie-review-three-musketeers-2011 ) Despite the fact that it wasn't at all a glowing review, I found some aspects of it fascinating (Airships. Milla. Etc. No, really, there's no "Etc" about it, it's just Milla and Airships, truth be told) so I decided to see the movie myself and review it *only* if something interesting struck me about it. We don't generally do multiple reviews of the same film, after all.

As it happens, I ended up with a different take on it than the boss. Not amazingly different, I just think there's a subtext here that explains the pervading awfulness.

This is an unabashedly stupid movie, but it just might be the *cleverest* stupid movie I’ve ever seen. The film it’s closest to in style, spirit and purpose is “Team America: World Police,” and it its own way, it’s even less restrained, though it’s also far less pointed. There’s some really funny stuff here, but you have to squint to find it. This is far more effort than most people are willing to put into a bad movie, however, and as I said: this is an unabashedly stupid one.

No, wait. Not “Unabashedly.” It is, in fact, *refreshingly, self-confidently* stupid. Just the same, the professional critics weren't kind.

Which is a shame, because in *not* being kind, the critics played right into the hands of the people who made this film. If you’re the stodgy “Why I never! They destroyed Dumas’ novel! Blah blah blah! Artistic veracity! Blah blah blah! Respect for literature! Blah blah blah! Michael York!” kind of person, then you are *EXACTLY* then this really is *exactly* the movie you should be seeing, because then you’d be in on the joke instead of the butt of it. Likewise, if you actually enjoy the movie at face value, you are *also* the butt of the same joke. That’s right: The same running gag victimizes fans and foes alike. That’s a tough trick to pull off, but they manage it.

As I said, this is one *clever* movie.

PLAY BY PLAY

You’re kidding, right? You want me to tell you the plot of “The Three Musketeers?” Come on, read a book why don’t’cha? Or just watch of the 45-or-so previous versions. The one with Michael York really is pretty good, and Raquel Welch is in there too, so: something for everyone.

Apart from a deliberately James Bondy opening sequence, the details of the story really are pretty close to the novel, which is, of course, part of the gag.

OBSERVATIONS

So here’s the deal: this movie is *entirely* deliberate, obvious parody of the Hollywood Summer Blockbuster Machine.

Take a story, any story, no matter how beloved, tart it up, hire a great cast but don’t let them do anything, boil characterization down to less-than-nothing, take a hot chick and let her kick some ass, throw in a couple overblown action set pieces, some exotic locations, a jiffy-pop resolution, and a tag for a sequel that will, in all likelihood, never get made. All the ingredients are here, right down to hiring a more or less personality-free carbon blob for the male lead (“He’s young, he’s hip, he’s now, he's instantly forgettable!”), stunt-casting people who are known for swordplay more than thespianism (Milla and Orlando), a bland Howard Shore-styled soundtrack (He’s like John Williams for boring people who don't like music!) and a script that revels in making every fifth line a deliberate, cringing cliché. I mean, it’s even got a completely incongruous pointless M.O.R. adult contemporary love ballad playing over the closing credits. How much more proof do you need?

Examples: “It’s what we do. It’s who we are.” “Afraid to face me in a fair fight?” “No, I just don’t fight fair.” “It’s nothing personal, it’s just business,” The dialog isn’t just bad, it’s deliberately bad. The whole movie is. It’s winking at you the whole time.

Performances are the same way: Milla is just the sexiest thing on two legs. You know the old joke about the gay dude who gets aroused by a super-hot chick hitting on him, and afterwards his friends ask him what was up with that? He says, “I’m gay, I’m not dead.” Well, Milla is hot enough to turn on dead guys. Seriously: Michael Jackson is stalking her, and he's both gay *AND* dead. But in this movie, she’s doing a sexless performance of a sexy person. She’s doing an impression of what someone *thinks*

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
So you're saying...

>>Maybe but they can be damn dangerous and their false beliefs opens them to manipulation by evil people.<<

So you're saying they're homo sapiens, then?

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

neorandomizer
neorandomizer's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2009
A bad rabbit hole

>>And yet they're mostly not bad people.<<

Maybe but they can be damn dangerous and their false beliefs opens them to manipulation by evil people.

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
Reichplatz

Yeah! The story was surprisingly close. They pumped up Milady's role a bit, but on the whole I actually felt it was one of the more faithful adaptations. The stuff they changed was basically gingerbread, it wasn't all that structural.

Excepting, really, the bit where the Musketeers refuse to go to work for Richelieu at the end. (I don't why this keeps popping into my head, but the German version of "Richelieu" is "Reichplatz.")

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

nwkeys01
nwkeys01's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/22/2009
hmmm

I've read the book, and they do kinda do talk like that (long time ago it was written)

I thought it portrayed the book, surprisingly well, even getting the character of Buckingham, for the most part correct. (In the sense, he's not exactly a bad guy, nor a good guy)

Meung was handled well, and they did change the meeting of the 3 with D'artagnan (pre-duel) but kept the general spirit of it as the book.

Airships were not necessary but I realize that Hollywood has to do somthing to bring in people to see the movie. But even that kept with the diamond room wires? The world is slightly more advanced technologically speaking.

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
Delusional or just poorly educated?

Yeah, I've got friends and at least one family member like that. What can you do? If it's just a legitimate case of bad information, I try to straighten them out in as non-threatening a way as possible. For instance, at church I've taken a couple people aside and explained that Muslims *do not* worship the moon.

"Well, they have a moon on their flag."
"Uh-huh, and we've got stars on ours. Do we worship the stars?"
"Well that's different."

My batting average is about .500. I think a lot of it is simply because no one ever explains stuff to people, which results in people believing crazy stuff like the Space Program is an affront to God, or that Global Warming will end all life on earth. Both are nonsense. Some of this is made worse by people who get some advantage from the ignorance of others. Al Gore. Several preachers I could name. It's really, really frustrating, though.

OTOH, a lot of people really are delusional. I know a guy who to this day claims the cold war never ended, and (in the same breath) claims that Moscow has been calling the shots in DC since WWII. What? Well then why would there be a cold war? I've got a friend who's denied for 20 years that Susan Ivonova and Talia Winters had a lesbian relationship. (This despite the fact that Straczynski himself said they did). Why? Who knows. Some people. Yikes. It's not just that they believe delusional crap, but that it's *important* to them.

And yet they're mostly not bad people. You don't want to hurt their feelings, you just kinda' feel sorry for them and want to pat them on the head and say, 'there there, my mad little hatter, you go on. Tell me your lunacy to your heart's content, and I'll come back to buy another comic book I don't want and let you rail at me again next week." Poor things. You just can't help but feel sorry for them, you know?

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

Scorpious
Scorpious's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/11/2010
You're right

I think you did well. That first page definitely seemed kind of wacky but at least had some interesting painting reproductions, and really wasn't offensive until the end. Unfortunately, though, it was probably the least incendiary page in the entire site.

Some people are just so confused. I have a "relative of a relative" who has a personal site where he mostly gives his comments on current events. There's nothing hateful there, but he really has no understanding of how things *actually* work, and literally everything that happens plays into his eccentric worldview ... in very unexpected and convoluted ways. He's a nice guy, and I haven't told him to unsubscribe me from his RSS feed (that he subscribed me to) because I don't want to hurt his feelings, but I hope none of his readers take anything he posts seriously, because he really hasn't got a clue ... and yet he's so sure and so passionate.

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
Link Removed

>>I should have investigated it a bit more before posting. Oh well..<<

No offence, but I've removed the link. It contained a lot of paranoid and incendiary stuff, and was leaning in the 'hate speech' direction. I wanna' keep our site clear from that. No offence, no harm done.

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
>>However, Richelieu's

>>However, Richelieu's "evilness" has nothing to do with the fact that he's a clergyman. I've already argued that he's not portrayed as a real villain in the books, but even in as much as he is, is just because he's a power-hungry scheming official and spurned lover. Nothing to do with his second day job as a "man of God."<<

I was actually unaware of the complexities of this before you pointed it out a few weeks ago. I don't know enough about it to comment in great detail, but I did make a point of saying that he was "A complex villain" who ends up in Snidely Whiplash territory in the film. I don't think I would have recognized that, if you hadn't schooled me on the character prior to my seeing the film. So thanks for that!

>>In the same way, Aramis' vocation as a man of the cloth has nothing to do with God's work in his life. He's a self-centered, hedonistic, ambitious socialite, and has no time to be considering God's will or God's work. [...] But it's never even hinted at that he possessed any true faith.<<

In the movie, they make him out to be religious *and* a hedonist. They deliberately go in the cheezy "Spiritual but not religious" cliche direction.

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

Scorpious
Scorpious's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/11/2010
The earth isn't spinning?

Hmm.. I've been looking into that site a bit more, and it's really gone over the deep end. Anyone clicking on it should be prepared for nonsensical entertainment of the kind that's not meaning to be entertaining :-(

I should have investigated it a bit more before posting. Oh well..

Scorpious
Scorpious's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/11/2010
"Federal Bureau of [EDITED]

>>In France the historical bad guys are the Jesuits who I once heard called the covert action arm of the Church. (Note I was raised Catholic.) They suffered heavily during the Terror in the 1790's.<<

The Jesuits had actually already been suppressed and expelled from France slightly before the Revolution and Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_the_Society_of_Jesus#France). (In the 3 Musketeers universe, this happens as a direct effect of Aramis' failed blackmailing attempts as President of that order, heh.)
However, what regular and secular clergy remained in France during those times were definitely heavily persecuted, ending in open civil war between government forces and various "Christian" insurrections (like the Chouans). I think that the Revolution also persecuted Protestants, Jews, etc. It was an all-round bad time to stand out in any way.

For a rather partisan read, I found this strange page while looking for the wikipedia link above:
[LINK REMOVED BY EDITOR]
Some of it is factual, of course, but the conclusions are a bit off, heh.

Scorpious
Scorpious's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/11/2010
"evil"

>>The one church official we meet in the film is flat-out evil, the one religious person we meet in the film – Aramis – left the church because “A man of God and a man of the cloth are not the same thing.” The Church is implied to be strongly involved in secular politics, manipulating them for their own advantage.<<

The RC Church was very involved in French politics for sure, in the same way as the Protestant churches were very involved in German and Scandinavian politics, the CoE was very involved in English politics, the Orthodox were very involved in Russian politics, etc. That was not a good system at all--thankfully the Americans had the brilliant idea of separating church from state, and that was a good thing for everyone.

However, Richelieu's "evilness" has nothing to do with the fact that he's a clergyman. I've already argued that he's not portrayed as a real villain in the books, but even in as much as he is, is just because he's a power-hungry scheming official and spurned lover. Nothing to do with his second day job as a "man of God."

In the same way, Aramis' vocation as a man of the cloth has nothing to do with God's work in his life. He's a self-centered, hedonistic, ambitious socialite, and has no time to be considering God's will or God's work. In one of the sequels, he manages to scheme into becoming President of the Jesuits, fulfilling his life's goal of acquiring power and influence for himself. But it's never even hinted at that he possessed any true faith.

Sad story.

neorandomizer
neorandomizer's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2009
My take on history

>>Oddly, the film is *Doggedly* anti-Catholic. The one church official we meet in the film is flat-out evil, the one religious person we meet in the film – Aramis – left the church because “A man of God and a man of the cloth are not the same thing.” The Church is implied to be strongly involved in secular politics, manipulating them for their own advantage.* <<

This is the view of the historical Catholic Church in Europe (And the original book). In every revolution or civil war in Europe over the past four hundred years there was an attack on the Church both physically and politically. In France the historical bad guys are the Jesuits who I once heard called the covert action arm of the Church. (Note I was raised Catholic.) They suffered heavily during the Terror in the 1790's.

American anti-Catholic feelings were copied from the Puritans and Church of England types that were the first British North American Colonists. This in the face of many British Catholics coming to the Thirteen Colonies in waves as British oppression of Catholics waxed and waned through the 17th and 18th centuries.

Republibot 3.0
Republibot 3.0's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/27/2008
Not American

>>It's unclear to me that Hollywood types should be credited with that degree of self awareness, but I suppose anything's possibly.<<

It's not an American film. It's actually European (Mostly German). Debuted in Europe over the summer. It's an imitation of an American film, but not an American one.

>>But does "aggressively stupid" really make one a B-movie content to be a B-movie? I've always thought that line applied to things like "Deep Blue Sea," which know they're neither great nor profound, that they are derivative, but put their wheel to the task of being the best little genre story that they can be.<<

Well, it helps. Certainly nobody's claiming "Plan 9" isn't a B-Movie because it's so darn smart. The stupid is part of the fabric. THIS movie is going out of its way to be dumber than it has to be, and it is (I think) deliberately imitating the worst conventions of Bruckheimcer/Bay.

The Artist Formerly Known As Republibot 3.0

Flabbergasted
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2010
Aggressively Stupid?

Okay, I get what you're saying about the potential self-subversion of the movie. It's unclear to me that Hollywood types should be credited with that degree of self awareness, but I suppose anything's possibly.

But does "aggressively stupid" really make one a B-movie content to be a B-movie? I've always thought that line applied to things like "Deep Blue Sea," which know they're neither great nor profound, that they are derivative, but put their wheel to the task of being the best little genre story that they can be.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Status

Bleeding Heart does not have a status.

Latest Status Updates

Mama Fisi The Husband's been back to work for several weeks now and is doing very well. 19 weeks ago
kelloggs2066 Gerry Anderson, Creator of so much British Science Fiction has died today, age 83 21 weeks ago
Scorpious wishes a Happy End-of-the-World Day to all bots 22 weeks ago
Kevin Long Well, it utterly sucks to be in Nebraska right now... 22 weeks ago
Mama Fisi @sunnyside Thanks! He's doing much better, he should be able to go back to work soon. We're both grateful this wasn't much worse. 24 weeks ago
sunnyside @Mama Fisi I'm glad your husband is feeling better. Happy Holidays. 24 weeks ago
Mama Fisi Thanks FG. The Husband came home Saturday and is doing OK, still needs monitoring on meds. A little weak but mostly no lasting damage, yay! 25 weeks ago