MovieChat Forums > The Three Musketeers (1948) Discussion > So did anyone find this version boring?

So did anyone find this version boring?


I watched last night, thinking I'd never seen this one before. But, twenty minutes into it, I realized I'd caught it on cable once and ended up turning the channel because it was so dull. Still, I figured I'd give it another chance and sat through it all.
The things right about it: it followed the book fairly well. And Gene made an enthusiastic, if miscast, D'Artagnan.

The things wrong with it: the fencing just seemed to be another way to show off Gene's dancing, and those scenes went on way too long.
The instant love between D'Artagnan and Constance. Maybe that hokey stuff washed over in 1948, but it is eye rollingly stupid now.
The fact that Athos, Porthos, and Aramis played such a small role in this movie, especially Porthos and Aramis. I get that D'Artagnan is considered by most to be the main character, but without the other three, D'Artagnan is just another dull hero. And I don't know if Dumas ever realized the original three musketeers were far more interesting than his hero, but they truly are far more complex and story worthy than their young Gascon friend.
The script. UGH. What was with the constant laughing with Athos, Porthos, and Aramis. Laughing, laughing, laughing. Even when NOTHING was funny. It made them look like cartoons. Not to mention the melodramatic dialogue.
Overall, it was just a dull movie. I love the book, so I generally stick it out to the end of all versions of the movies. But here's a hint to any future makers of another version:
All four men are equally important, as they function as a UNIT. Their relationships, that brotherhood, is what makes the story special. The adventure is good too, but it isn't half as interesting when the friendship between the men isn't shown or stressed.

Didn't like the movie and wouldn't recommend it.

reply

[deleted]

I had the same issues with the movie - especially the laughing. This is one of my favorite books, and I love Gene Kelly, so I forced myself to watch until the end, but it was painful!

reply

For sure there is too much mirth in this version. For me I liked watching my fav actor Vincent Price, just perfect as Richelieu (sp?). This is pure MGM light entertainment fare and you have to like that kind of film to enjoy this. I did.

reply

Agreed. I was going to write a comment to that effect, but you saved me the work.

reply

The only thing that makes this movie endurable (barely), is Van Heflin. He was magnificent in anything.

reply

Oh.....I'm disappointed to find that it is boring as I was about to watch this adaptation. At least it's faithful, I guess.

reply

It's fairly faithful, and though there are some fantastically gothic moments towards the end, it wasn't nearly as dark as the book is. But fortunately, they didn't go the Disney route (i can't explain that without spoiling an essential moment at the end).

It's anything BUT boring. I mean, I need to rewatch the Richard Lester films, but this one had remarkably witty one-liners and parley, simply awe-inspiring action scenes (I see now why they inspired action sequences thereafter), and even some fancy footwork by our D'Artagnan.

The movie's not slow or boring in the least—unless you find Dumas's story in itself slow and boring.

reply

Add two more to the list. Mt girlfriend and I watched it yesterday, and even she, who is a HUGE Gene Kelly fan found it very dull.

few visible scars

reply

Dull? All that terrific sword fighting was dull? What was dull aboot it? I'll agree they dechristened it made the Cardinal a non-priest, but dull? I don't get it.

Whole sight; or all the rest is desolation.

reply


No, THEY don't get it. The OP and the morons that followed are
probably "Matrix" fans and unless something features scenes with two
lines, flatly delivered by Keanu Reeves... (I'm probably spelling his
name wrong...but does it matter?? Nope). This adaptation is highly
literate and faithful and the photography stunning. And the complaint
that Kelly's expertly staged fight scenes remind one of his musical
moments sounds like a compliment to me. Fine film; stupid posters.

reply

I for one appreciate good old fashioned Hollywood swashbucklers but I have to agree with the others, I found the sword fights to be exciting but rather a bit too long snd tedious. When the sword fights are over the rest of the movie bogs down, I thought the best part of the movie was when Athos was talking about his failed marriage, watching Van Heflin do that scene was better than most of the sword fights. Unfortunately there wasn't more scenes like that with the other Musketeers. Also Lana was terrific, another high point but the rest of the movie just didn't work.

Badder than old King Kong, Meaner than a Junkyard dog

reply


I don't know why these people find this version Boreing. Its the most Faithful to the Book, Great swordplay and a great ending.
Oh GOOD!,my dog found the chainsaw

reply

I fell asleep.

Update-I have been falling asleep during all types of movies, tv shows,etc. It seems I have a bit of a health concern so apparently it wasn't boredom after all. Cheers !

(Your signature is a hoot.)

"I say,open this door at once! We're British !"

reply

I enjoyed the movie.

Gene Kelly's acrobatic/gymnastic sword fight.

Followed the book reasonably closely--for a Hollywood movie.

Lana Turner, Frank Morgan, Vincent Price, and Angela Lansbury--fun to see.

Not great, but definitely a fun movie to watch.

reply

Boring? This movie? This movie boring? Are you joking? This movie has some problems: it's got way too much story for its running time, no is even REMOTELY French, and neither of the two main leading ladies, Lana Turner and June Alyson, can act at all, but it NOT boring! It's a highly enjoyable, colorful romp.

reply

Have seen it several times and never found it boring. When I was a kid I was kind of annoyed by the liberties it took with the novel and by Gene Kelly's comic antics, but as I got older I came to appreciate it more and now I love it each time I see it. I even appreciate Kelly as D'Artagnnan. And I like how, unlike other movie versions, it follows the entire arc of the novel, going past the swashbuckling of the first half and on to the tragedy of the second half.

reply