MovieChat Forums > The Three Musketeers (2011) Discussion > Was I the only one who enjoyed this?

Was I the only one who enjoyed this?


Sure it's not going to be winning any awards, but I thought that it was a pretty entertaining, action-packed movie. I just don't understand why everyone seems to despise it.



"But we're not stupid - we know we're called Gred and Forge."

reply

well you aren't completely alone. I enjoyed it a lot actually.

The Operative: Do you know what your sin is Mal
Mal: Ah Hell... I'm a fan of all seven.

reply

OF COURSE YOURE NOT ALONE DUDE, THIS MOVIE ROCKED AND IT WAS *beep* BADASS WITH ITS HOT ACTION HAHA! MILLA <3!

reply

Nope, you're not alone.
I enjoyed it at well.
Yes, I am a Logan Lerman fan, but I really don't see what is so terrible about this movie.
It's not the best movie I've ever seen, but it was entertaining enough.
I also want to comment that I actually think the 3D was very well done...I've seen quite a few movies in 3D and this one stands out for having been one of the better ones

reply

Exactly. I'll admit, the main reason that I went to this movie was because of Logan, but I ended up enjoying it a lot.



"But we're not stupid - we know we're called Gred and Forge."

reply

I was lured by the wonderful casting and sadly I ended up hating this movie...just awful. I couldn't even finish it, but I only disslike it because I am not seeing it as a completely unique non-serious reimagining of the other films and of coure the book. It was never ment to match up to the other films that have been made...this movie was made purely for entertainment purposes.

reply

I, too, saw the film because of the wonderful cast, but I enjoyed it. It reminded me of what they are doing with the TV series "Sherlock", in stretching boundaries.

But you are right, it's 100% entertainment. Perhaps if people watch the film with that in mind, then maybe they might enjoy it more? Who knows.

reply

You are definitely not alone. It was an entertaining movie, a great way to spend time at the theatre. Don't let the haters and bullies affect your opinion or ruin your enjoyment of this movie. Sure, it was not perfect, more screentime could have been devoted to the three musketeers and D'artagnan, but it's a problem I can get past.

mostwanted123, I agree with you. The 3D really worked with this one. I was apprehensive of seeing this in 3D at first because live action rarely works with 3D (like "Clash of the Titans") but is most effective in animated films (like "Tangled," "Legends of the Guardians" and "Rio"). But 3D really made this film better.

reply

Lked it....just like some people think Steve Carrell or Will Farrell are both hilarious, I believe this movie is good

reply

[deleted]

I enjoyed it a lot and I will definitely watch it again.


reply

[deleted]

I enjoyed it enormously too! :-) Just writing a review for my blog as well lol!

http://duncansguide.blogspot.com - My Reviews

reply

I enjoyed it! And I'll watch it again...
I don't know why all the hate on this movie but the whole world is a critic I guess. I am a Orlando fan! But I really liked all the actors in this film. I was impressed with the 3D! A wonderful way to spend my Saturday watching a good family movie with my 14 year old son!!

reply

Great review lukepowers_16. Totally agree on many accounts in your post. I for one really enjoyed this movie and would see it again if I have the chance.

While it's a movie with flaws, it certainly does not deserve the bashing it's received from the critics, receiving only less than 30 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes (for one, you can't complain about the acting, everyone gave strong performances and enjoyed themselves - well, maybe except for Gabrielle Wilde, not a fan of her Constance, but it's still forgivable). Oh well, I guess you can't please everyone.

reply

ICAM with most of what you said. Besides...I'm honestly not trying to be rude, but IMO anyone who hasn't seen it, their opionion means nothing. If they aren't going to watch it ever, fine. But calling something crap you haven't seen...is like calling someone ugly you've never seen.
It makes the same amount of ILLOGICAL sense. See it, and if you still think it's crap, fine. Agree to disagree. But these peeps bashing it who haven't seen it get on my nerves.

reply

You're not the only one. I also don't understand the critics' reaction. It was fun, as was promised in the trailer. I will say even more - for me, Andersen's managed to do what the makers of the fourth Pirates wanted to do, while still without Jack Sparrow. Yeah, the Musketeers movie has less of that comic extravaganza, yet conveys that very levity and novelty, that spirit of true adventure and of the boys' novels of cloak and sword that I remember from "The Curse of the Black Pearl." Which is to me a success.

reply

I have only seen some trailers, but they seem to be very interesting. I also have noticed that me and Luke share same kind of taste for movies.

I'm going to see it tomorrow, already booked a ticket. The theater was empty at that time, but here in Finland, reserving a ticket beforehand is not very common.


BTW people, how much does a ticket to 3D films cost around? Mine's 8,80€ for a daytime screening, evening screening is a bit more expensive.
_________________________________
You don't know, how I feel...

reply

Wow, that was very well said. Now that I think about it, it does have the "Pirates" sort of feel to it. Which to me is really good, because the first Pirates of the Caribbean is one of my favorite movies. I guess this is just my kind of movie. :)



"But we're not stupid - we know we're called Gred and Forge."

reply

No you're not the only one. I swear people I getting more and more cynical every day. No one can have fun anymore.

reply

Ugh, exactly. Like every movie made nowadays has to a complete masterpiece for it to be good.



"But we're not stupid - we know we're called Gred and Forge."

reply

I enjoyed it, the person I saw it with enjoyed it, and the audience we saw it with seemed to enjoy it too. No, it wasn't high-brow cinema, but it was a fun movie with lots of eye candy. Nothing wrong with that.

You are a funny man, Mr. Bond.

reply

Forgive us for having standards

reply

I didn't expect a faithful retelling of the classic book, I knew exactly what a Paul W.S. Anderson film meant, so yeah, I enjoyed it.

reply

I think the bulk of the hate comes from the fact that it IS a classic book. It's like Paul Anderson & the writer (moreso the writer) took something that has endured for nearly 2 centuries (believe the story was published in 1844) and basically said "This is dumb, needs more 'splosions and airships and bullet-time and... and... wire fighting and.." etc, etc, until it isn't even the Three Musketeers anymore.

If they'd made this movie with their own characters and story, instead of just bastardizing a piece of classic literature, I'm sure it'd have gotten a lot more favourable reviews... or at least a more favourable audience reception. Lots of people are very protective of classics, even remakes/reboots/whatever you want to call this mess, of beloved movies are usually more prone to criticism.

If you like it, all the more power to you, I love a stupid adventure movie once in awhile too. However, and call me a 'hater' if you want, but this movie is a travesty that couldn't even be sold under its own merits. They had to attach a famous name to it and then completely spit all over the material they're supposed to be drawing their inspiration from. THAT'S why it's getting all the hate it's getting.

reply

I personally enjoyed it thoroughly and was actually GLAD that it did something new. How many adaptations of The Three Musketeers have there been? A good handful. Doing something new is what makes this adaptation legitimate.

It took the basic framework of the original story--three musketeers, D'Artagnan, the evil Cardinal, a French setting, and all the rest--and then came up with a new twist on Dumas's tale.

Yes, the book is a classic, but making this movie in no way violates the book. It's not as if you can't still go out and purchase the book in its original form and read it. It's also not as if making this new version causes former versions to cease to exist.

So who cares? Go, watch the movie, have fun.

reply

I agree that there've been a lot of movie adaptations of the book, and doing just another one would have been just as annoying as going so far out to left field.

But when it's been done to death already, isn't that just a hint that maybe it's time to stop making Three Musketeer movies?

reply

I think the bulk of the hate comes from the fact that it IS a classic book. It's like Paul Anderson & the writer (moreso the writer) took something that has endured for nearly 2 centuries (believe the story was published in 1844) and basically said "This is dumb, needs more 'splosions and airships and bullet-time and... and... wire fighting and.." etc, etc, until it isn't even the Three Musketeers anymore.

If they'd made this movie with their own characters and story, instead of just bastardizing a piece of classic literature, I'm sure it'd have gotten a lot more favourable reviews... or at least a more favourable audience reception. Lots of people are very protective of classics, even remakes/reboots/whatever you want to call this mess, of beloved movies are usually more prone to criticism.

If you like it, all the more power to you, I love a stupid adventure movie once in awhile too. However, and call me a 'hater' if you want, but this movie is a travesty that couldn't even be sold under its own merits. They had to attach a famous name to it and then completely spit all over the material they're supposed to be drawing their inspiration from. THAT'S why it's getting all the hate it's getting.



Exactly right. The problem is that you are taking a piece of historical fiction and moving it over to another "genre," of film, namely, steampunk. Which is not what Dumas had originally written. In which case, is it really an adaptation, or merely, as you've stated, an attachment of a famous name to something completely different from the source material, in style and tone? The fact of the matter is that this film takes its inspiration from the fantasy/sci-fi/alternate history video games that dominate the gaming industry, with the names and "plot" of the Dumas novel.

reply

"The fact of the matter is that this film takes its inspiration from the fantasy/sci-fi/alternate history video games that dominate the gaming industry, with the names and "plot" of the Dumas novel. "--DunderDad


That's probably what is going to save Paul WS Anderson's career. Since he has built his career on adapting games into live movies, he can claim ,rightly, that the studio did not market the movie correctly. Perhaps the movie would have been more successful if it had been promoted in game shops ( with perhaps a tie-in game as a giveaway?). The wrong audience went to the opening!








Live Full & Die Empty. Tap Your Potential and Realise Your Dreams!

reply

It's a homage, or a different interpretation of the source material. This stuff happens all the time. I mean, look at Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. That was an original classic, moved into the horror/camp genre, and completely changed the style and tone of the novel. It's highly successful. The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaimen, which won the Newbery medal, is essentially The Jungle Book, only set in a graveyard with ghosts, rather than the jungles of India with animals. Again, different interpretation of the source material.

This movie was a fun popcorn flick, and I personally found it entertaining. Even though it is a big change from the novel, and I love the novel, it was still something fun to see. I'm also one of those who often has a fit about books being turned into films, because often times key plot points are left out, or it's nothing like the novel.

Sometimes you just need escapist films like this. It's not high art, and frankly it was a lot more enjoyable than some of the other "low art" films that have come out. It was certainly more enjoyable than Avatar. And before anyone says I'm not watching "adult" films, I've spent the past week catching up on my Criterion blu-ray purchases, and watching PVRs of Italian neorealist films TCM had on the other night. You're not ANY less of a film fan if you like movies like this.

I don't know who's worse, the critics, or the wannabe film snobs. I think people are becoming too dependent upon what Rotten Tomatos and critics say when they watch a film, or depend too much on IMDB message board comments.

reply

TY for this post. I thank God I don't give RT/critics/IMDB any more relevance than needed. I actually see a film before saying it sucks.

This movie was so much FUN. THere are so many positives that outweight the negatives IMO.

For some reason it's a crime to go to a fun movie just for enjoyment these days.
Everything has to mean something. What a shame.

reply

I don't know who's worse, the critics, or the wannabe film snobs. I think people are becoming too dependent upon what Rotten Tomatos and critics say when they watch a film, or depend too much on IMDB message board comments.


Nonsense. Average moviegoers opinions can be a very useful tool in evaluating the merits of a film, and professional critics opinions can be educational, insightful and a helpful guide in movie choices. What I don't understand is why people complain about critics, or complain about anyone who has any negative criticism (and subsequently labels them as merely "haters") about a film. Frankly, I don't think listening to, or reading, what others say, or have written, is necessarily a bad thing, nor do I think it means that such persons don't have their own thoughts and opinions. The fact of the matter is, that a person's time/money is valuable. I don't think anyone wants to throw it away on a *beep* film. (It's not as though you can get a refund as could you with any other product.) And basing your judgement on merely a preview, which obviously portrays the film in a "positive" light, seems a bit haphazard. Personally, I don't want to reward filmmakers for poor films, who then turn around and point to box office receipts about how successful a film was, when in reality, it was dreadful, though many (myself included) had paid to see it.[/quote]

reply

everything rips off something somehow... why not just enjoy the movie for what it is... if you thought it was going to be exactly like the original book after watching the previews, you were kidding yourself in the first place...

i for one loved the movie and really hope they continue the franchise since it left off on an obvious sequal... i love the original story, i have no problem with them doing a retelling with steampunk elements... obviously certain things are going to change when the characters are introduced to different scenarios/technology...

its 3 musketeers mixed with final fantasy and a splash of princess bride thrown in. i for one am 100% ok with that mix


"Let's go Ryder! Woo Woo Woo!"

reply

Have you read the novel? No airships in it, but it's got more in common with the original than the Disney version-yet people on here treat the Disney version like some kind of faithful classic.
It has more in common with how the characters are written, more in common with the actual plot of the novel-than the Disney version even tried to do.
The Disney version watered the novel down to the point where it was something Dumas never intended-mundane and dull.

At least this version never bored me. I like the DIsney version because I find something to like about all the versions-but this version is FAR more entertaining.

reply