2/10
The Worst of the Worst
24 June 2004
I one reviewed a movie on IMDb and said it was the worst I had ever seen, but this movie has superseded that one to become the worst.

1. The movie was not historically accurate. There were several severe problems with accuracy. The idea that a woman, without at all disguising herself as a man, could have ever become a musketeer is awfully presumptuous to begin with. Next, all the characters were CLEAN throughout the movie. The time period in which it was set ought to have clued in the filmmakers that a little dirt was in order, since people rarely to never bathed. Also, almost all of the French characters spoke with British accents. The costumes looked new, like they had never been worn before.

2. The acting was abysmal. OK, there were a couple of decent actors, but I can't imagine how they were convinced to be in this. The main actors, however, Susie Amy and the main musketeers, were severely lacking in acting skill. I'm not sure if this was their fault or the director's, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt. My sister's comment was that at the height of Valentine's emotional output, she looks like she has just broken a nail.

3. The story was extremely close to the story of "The Three Musketeers," where the musketeers must protect the queen from having her indiscretions become known. In this story, they are protecting the young king, but other than that, the differences are slight. Evidently the screen writer did not have the creativity to think up something actually new.

There was one thing I enjoyed very much about this movie. It gave us a lot of laughs. My sister and I muted the TV and made up dialogue to go with the terrible wigs and bad acting.

I would recommend this movie to anyone for a laugh.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed