This adaptation of the classic tale is yet again conflicted as it comes to the good that it brings and the bad that arrives with it. Thus far, I hold the 1970's version by Lester as a pinnacle in The Three Musketeers adaptations, and - unfortunately - this latest attempt does not threaten its throne.
The negatives included the dark-toned costumes and the overall gritty colour scheme of the entire movie. The King's Musketeers, historically consisting of nobility, seemed more like a group of mercenaries who had crawled to work through muddy ditches. And even the richer nobility seemed to prefer dark colours, which is just silly when you consider that bright colours and clean clothes were the main indicators of wealth at the time.
Another downside relates to the relationships between the characters: overall, they were mostly taken for granted, assuming that viewers already knew that the three musketeers were close friends, so there was not much need to show it. There are no scenes showing the chemistry between the three musketeers to make them actually feel like friends. Similarly, d'Artagnan's relationship with Constance felt superficial at best - there was no apparent chemistry between the actors.
There also seemed to be little left of the musketeers' honour: in an early fight with the cardinal's men, one of the musketeers commits a clear murder.
On the positive side, the film showed some daring in slightly reinventing the story - and managed to do it with a fair bit of respect for history: the relationship between the king and his brother was as problematic as it should be, and the conflict between Catholics and Protestants received more visibility than in previous iterations, and it was even part of the plot. These elements lead to new plot twists and elements, but do not (IMHO) take it too far from the original (like some other recent film versions did).
Of course, there were some ill-judged costume bits: temple frame spectacles on one character stood out (as they appeared only c. 150 years later), as well as the umbrella to hold off rain.
This first part of the two-part film certainly loses to Lester's films from the 1970s, but it's still a somewhat enjoyable "dark" version of the adventure. I'm teetering between 3/5 and 3.5/5, but - for the moment - I'll let it lie at 3/5 (6/10).
The negatives included the dark-toned costumes and the overall gritty colour scheme of the entire movie. The King's Musketeers, historically consisting of nobility, seemed more like a group of mercenaries who had crawled to work through muddy ditches. And even the richer nobility seemed to prefer dark colours, which is just silly when you consider that bright colours and clean clothes were the main indicators of wealth at the time.
Another downside relates to the relationships between the characters: overall, they were mostly taken for granted, assuming that viewers already knew that the three musketeers were close friends, so there was not much need to show it. There are no scenes showing the chemistry between the three musketeers to make them actually feel like friends. Similarly, d'Artagnan's relationship with Constance felt superficial at best - there was no apparent chemistry between the actors.
There also seemed to be little left of the musketeers' honour: in an early fight with the cardinal's men, one of the musketeers commits a clear murder.
On the positive side, the film showed some daring in slightly reinventing the story - and managed to do it with a fair bit of respect for history: the relationship between the king and his brother was as problematic as it should be, and the conflict between Catholics and Protestants received more visibility than in previous iterations, and it was even part of the plot. These elements lead to new plot twists and elements, but do not (IMHO) take it too far from the original (like some other recent film versions did).
Of course, there were some ill-judged costume bits: temple frame spectacles on one character stood out (as they appeared only c. 150 years later), as well as the umbrella to hold off rain.
This first part of the two-part film certainly loses to Lester's films from the 1970s, but it's still a somewhat enjoyable "dark" version of the adventure. I'm teetering between 3/5 and 3.5/5, but - for the moment - I'll let it lie at 3/5 (6/10).