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."
- Well, it only seems. I personally liked it.
In fact, I just gave my vote for it to be nominated at PCA here: http://www.peopleschoice.com/pca/nominations/index.jsp. I don't know if it will get there and it probably won't, but honestly, it's the ONLY movie that came out this year on the big screen that I actually liked. Others were the complete rubbish or no interest of mine.
I've also voted for Orlando Bloom to be nominated as a fav actor. I really enjoyed his performance in the role of the Duke. :)
I quite enjoyed it was well. As the did the people I went with. As the saying goes "Haters are gonna hate".
shareI quite enjoyed it was well. As the did the people I went with. As the saying goes "Haters are gonna hate".
Many films of The Golden Age were lavish spectacles with beautiful sets and costumes and beautiful actors, and perhaps, less than stellar acting and cheesey dialogue, but people went to see them and enjoyed them as the escapist entertainment they were. Those who didn't enjoy the film didn't mob together and tear it apart and insult the people who enjoyed it the way they do now. Sad sign of the times.
You are a funny man, Mr. Bond.
Very well said, sandserpent!
share[deleted]
I really liked it (an yes, I read the books) - you cannot of course, take it serious - it's just for fun.
I actually didn't know who was in it at all and had no expectations - my husband made fun of me when I read things here (aftre we saw the movie) and was like "Oh wow - this and this person was in the film?" - Then looked at the picture again and "Oh yea, I guess this is right." Lol
The only thing I realized was that they filmed a lot of things in "Bamberg, Germany" - I grew up there - so I was really happy to see what they did with those scenes. It looks beautiful.
Three candles that illuminate every darkness: truth, nature and knowledge.
[deleted]
dracowaltztard I don't get the hate either. Yes, it's not going to be winning awards, but there are far worse movies out there (and with really atrocious actors at that!) raking in all the gazillions of money they don't deserve.
shareICAM ! This is a fun movie, well casted, good action scenes, chemistry with the cast members. The only really significant downside is that the script could have been so much better.Oh, and no real bonding scenes with the musketeers.
It isn't supposed to be an Oscar film. It's an entertaining two hours at the movies, nothing more or less.
I enjoyed this movie too.
I love This type of movies
I loved the mask of zorro , Pirates of the Caribbean the course of the black pearl, Pirates of the Caribbean on stranger tides and I liked the legend of zorro .
My only problem a few things like air ships and lesser beans were too modern for those times
"I liked Pirates of the Caribbean on stranger tides and I liked the legend of zorro"
Oh dear.
Air ships are plausible. If anyone understood about hot air balloons that would have definitely been possible in the 17th century.
The "lesser beans" which I presume you mean "laser beams" weren't actually lasers, at least the idea is they were really thin wires that could only be seen in smoke. That's at least believable even if not realistic.
I really enjoyed it. The only things I took issue with were the airships and deWinter being a ninja!spy because they were SO off-par, but besides that I was pretty happy with it.
-----
"Are you *beep* joking?"
"No, I'm regular joking."
I'm a sucker for anything with swordfights in it. I fence and I collect swords. I will watch anything with swords in it. Also, I'm a huge fan of anything that has Ray Stephenson in it. Loved him ever since Rome. So I went in, knowing that it would be a ridiculous story, and appreciated it for what it was.
It also didn't hurt that I had 30 dollars in gift certificates to pay for the tickets and all the food. Basically, a free movie. I honestly wish there were more sword fights and far less airship battles. Still, I enjoyed it for what it was.
I enjoyed this movie. Did I think it was going to be just like the book? No. Film adaptations are rarely like their novel parents and I expect and accept this. It was enjoyable for me and different and if you're not hung up on what other people think of it and have a couple hours, go ahead and watch it. Be entertained. Allow yourself to be.
While I do wish there was more sword-fighting in it, I will watch it again.
[deleted]
As many others have stated...NO you were NOT the only one who liked this OP! Great flick. Old school swashbuckling action adventure movie. Good stuff.
"Time is the fire in which we burn"
[deleted]
Director is British, along with most of the principle actors.
shareI liked it in the same way I liked "300" - that one was NOT supposed to depict the real Battle of Thermopylae (sp?) and no one was supposed to think that the historic Persians looked like the monsters we saw in the movie. It was supposed to be another take on the event, and it was entertaining.
And this is how I viewed this movie: it was not supposed to be a real honest depiction of the novel - for that, we could stick with the 1948 version with Gene Kelley or the 1973 version with Michael York. This was supposed to be an alternate steampunk take, and it was a blast. I'm not a fan of Milla Jovovich but when I saw her flying through the air as Milady, I was real laughing and thought she's more entertaining than Lana Turner of Faye Dunaway.
Note that I didn't mention the 1993 Disney version: well, that movie didn't have ninjas or airships, but was even LESS FAITHFUL to the novel than this 2011 one! There's no appearance of essential elements like the clumsy French King, the stolen diamonds, the Buckingham-Queen Anne affair, Milady comes out a little symphathetic when that's not the intention of Dumas, and there was no realistic depiction of the musketeers the way they were in the novel, like, they were just too young in the first place. Here, I thought the actors playing Athos, Porthos and Aramis had the required gravitas and defined each role clearly enough. Aside from the 1973 version, this is the only version where D'Artagnan is clearly much younger than the Musketeers.
And you have the breathtaking costumes and scenery.
Of course there are some serious flaws, and I wouldn't give this movie higher than 7/10, but it doesn't deserve so much abuse.
One complaint for me: Christopher Waltz didn't steal the movie as Richelieu. Actors like Vincent Price and Charlton Heston did the role better.
But again, if you can appreciate the alternate take to history in "300", we could appreciate an alternate take on a classic novel, which has been done and redone many times.
the movie was pretty entertaining, usually books are ruined by movie that doesnt change any of the premise or the setting but just screws up the characters/plot. this one was full of eye candy, the anachronisms were also very well placed and the action was good, almost all of the cast has had experience in swordfighting in other projects so that seemed very realistic. there was not much of 'forced' dramatic fighting and every fight finished rather quickly before it gotten boring or too unrealistic. the down side however was the 'cheap lovestory' and since there is too many characters they arent very developed...
share