Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: Olivia Bauer on October 01, 2011, 10:22:34 AM



Title: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: Olivia Bauer on October 01, 2011, 10:22:34 AM
NOPE! This is NOT going to be good! No chance in hell! You can't steam punk the Three Musketeers! Up yours, Paul W.S. Anderson!  :hatred:


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: InformationGeek on October 01, 2011, 10:59:33 AM
NOPE! This is NOT going to be good! No chance in hell! You can't steam punk the Three Musketeers! Up yours, Paul W.S. Anderson!  :hatred:

Oh your no fun!  This sounds quite interesting and fun, though we need a better director to make this great.


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: Jim H on October 02, 2011, 12:21:57 AM
The trailers look like a spoof of modern action movie cliches (like the slow motion slide under the bullets, and the action female).  It really looks bad. 


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: claws on October 02, 2011, 12:33:37 AM
This was filmed in my neighborhood last year September/October. It was nice to see familiar, local places in the trailer. I won't be watching this at the theater but I will check it out once it hits Blu-ray.


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: Hammock Rider on October 03, 2011, 11:08:19 AM
I'm a sucker for any interpretation of the Three Musketeers and Milla is my girl so I'm planning on seeing this.


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: Archivist on October 05, 2011, 01:48:17 AM
Yeah, I'm up for this one, too.  Count me in for the 3D funtimes!


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: Flick James on October 05, 2011, 02:13:50 PM
There's a growing trend of movies that take a classic story and change it to the point of being completely irrelevant. No thank you.


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on October 08, 2011, 03:25:12 PM
I think I'll skip this one.

I've seen the . . . version,
1939
1948
1973
1993
and I enjoyed them all. But, the book by Dumas, pere, I just find it totally unreadable. And that is not the only French novel, where I enjoyed all the film versions, but could never get into the book. Hugo's "Les Miserables" is the same way. But there I have seen five different film versions of it, and I enjoyed them all, but I just found the book to be totally unreadable.

I think the only French novelist I truly enjoy is Jules Verne, even though his novels are both hit and miss with me.

"Around the World in Eighty Days." Totally enjoyable. Read it many times.
"20,000 Leagues Under the Sea." So-so. The book is readable, but the 1954 film is more enjoyable.
"Journey to the Center of the Earth." Totally unreadable. Little if anything seems to happen.
All of these, of course, having been made into films. Sometimes multiple times.


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: tracy on October 15, 2011, 12:29:36 PM
The trailers look like a spoof of modern action movie cliches (like the slow motion slide under the bullets, and the action female).  It really looks bad.  

That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw a trailer for it. Although I like the general story....I actually liked the campy version with Charlie Sheen and Keifer Sutherland....this version looks like a waste of my time. BTW....my main draw for that campy one was Tim Curry.

(http://katescritiques.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/c18.jpg)


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: Jack on October 15, 2011, 05:01:08 PM
Why do they call them musketeers when they're always fighting with swords?


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on October 17, 2011, 04:59:17 PM
Why do they call them musketeers when they're always fighting with swords?

I don't know whether any of the film versions go into it, but the King's Musketeers were trained to fire and fight with muskets. Then  fight with swords only when the enemy got close enough to use swords. 

And when I saw "Real Steel," which was more enjoyable than I thought it'd be, I saw the trailer for "Three Musketeers." And oh God, it was worst than I expected. If I had any doubts about not seeing it, then the trailer killed off those doubts.


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: Torgo on October 17, 2011, 06:36:53 PM
I've seen on a couple of movie sites where they said that the W.S. in Paul W.S. Anderson's name stands for "What Script".


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: Kaseykockroach on October 17, 2011, 08:07:55 PM
I've seen on a couple of movie sites where they said that the W.S. in Paul W.S. Anderson's name stands for "What Script".
So what does the "M" in "M. Night Shyalaman stand for then? ;)
Anyhow, can't wait to not see this.


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: WingedSerpent on October 18, 2011, 06:42:47 PM
I don't plan on seeing this. The strange thing is I might have given it a chance if it wasn't called The Three Musketeers. 

When Disney released their version of Hunchback of Notre Dame and I saw it had colorful songs and quirky sidekicks, I made a conscience effort not to see the movie for as long as I could.  Being only somewhat familiar with the source material, I knew it couldn't be like the cartoon Disney was putting out and the movie would get a lot wrong. On a positive note, that decision not to see it made me get the original novel from the library an read it for myself.

What does this have to due with the Three Musketeers. Its the same situation. An even more blatant changing of the source material. If they had said that this was some original property merely set during the time of musketeers, I might have seen it hoping for a steampunk action film with some interesting (if not cliche by this point) visuals.


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: Joe the Destroyer on October 20, 2011, 01:08:58 AM
I actually thought this film was going to be interesting and possibly fun and exciting.

...until I saw Paul WS Anderson's name used.   :hatred:  Yeah, I'll be skipping this.


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: Archivist on October 20, 2011, 01:19:20 AM
It starts today in Australia, 20th of October.  In 3D, no less.  If I had a beard, I'd be stroking it right about now.


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: etmoviesb on October 24, 2011, 11:15:05 AM
I saw this flick! It is unexpectedly good! In a spoof of action movies sense... Beside it is more similar to the book than many other book inspired movies!

The movie is meant to be corny, the first scene tells it clearly. Atos uses two absurd weapons that in the sheath looked like two shotguns! From there it is more and more corny and absurd! Yet always charming...
In the context the flying vessels sound almost normal. If you know something of physics you will pass half of the time asking: how is possible?!? and the other half laughing.
(i.e. water level in connected system, why Venice does not have flying vessels in the first place, ...)


This movie is like an American ``Drunken Taoism''. Crazy, downright insane; but extremely enjoyable. Oh... the story recalls the three musketeers in many points. Not only the characters names.

Downside? In the book the four main characters are determinators badasses and even if injured multiple times they reach their goals and even with multiple problems they win.
In the movie they are god-mode marty stues. Hardly ever anything goes even a little wrong or they are injured. It is so exaggerate that overtakes the ``badass'' concept.

(sorry for the tvtropes terminology, I hope it puts the point)

Probably it is not worth the cinema, but my friends, you have to rent the DVD.


Title: Re: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Post by: Hammock Rider on October 24, 2011, 04:19:24 PM
 Athos is a scuba diving ninja, Aramis is Batman and Porthos is the French Hulk. If you don't mind shredding every bit of nuance, subtlety, logic and historical accuracy from the novel and replacing it with over-the-top, outrageous and sometimes ridiculous spectacle and special fx, it's a fun movie. And I speak as an unapologetic fan of the novel and most of the cinematic versions. If you know going in what to expect it's not bad.