The Three Musketeers (1993)

In 7 words or less: Those pesky Musketeers are at it again

What's it all About? Yet another retelling of the Dumas Musketeer tale that changes things to become a bit more movified. The first 20 minutes are pretty much a scene for scene facsimile of the 1973 version. Then some big changes occur. Cardinal Richelieu and Rochefort have more predominant roles and instead of the Queen having an affair with the Duke of Buckingham, it is now the Cardinal who wants to unite France and England to depose the King.  He has the Musketeers disbanded and only our three remaining swordsmen (and D'Artagnan) can fight together for King and country.

Best bits? Nothing to see here

Did it make you think thoughts? From the outset this film establishes itself as a light hearted, chuckling, true Disney affair. With this in mind I thought there would be heroes punching villains and using the hilt of the sword to knock foes unconscious. It was surprising then that the film depicts lots of killing, stabbing, sword slashing and a particularly gruesome iron maiden scene. I was confused. Oh well. 

Looking at the action scenes, they do their job but have no choreography that shows off the abilities of the musketeers. That is, our heroes just fight like normal guys. It's fairly common practice in action films to portray the hero as a super dude who has crazy ass moves and dazzling skills. Our boys however,  fight as if they've just finished their shift at the local burger joint, picked up a sword and fancied duelling some mustachioed villains. Boring and lame.

The set pieces are ok but there is one that sticks out as being truly abysmal. The three stooges musketeers and tag-along D'artagnan are being pursued by Rochefort and his band of horsemen. The muskies decide to de-board their horse and carriage, set it alight and roll it down the hill towards the enemy. How will the enemy avoid this? All well and good but then consider the fact that it's not a narrow path that the flaming carriage is hurtling down but in fact a massive, and I mean massive wide expanse, effectively a field. I surmise it would take approximately a 15-20 degree turn either left or right for Rochefort and his goons to steer around the wheeled doom that is heading towards them but they inexplicably turn around whilst shrieking like girls and ride in the opposite direction. Words failed me at the time and all I could muster was a loud groan. 

The casting crew need to have a long hard look at themselves as well. Charlie Sheen? Now, stick Chuck in a comedy ala Hotshots and it's a winning combination. Make him have to pretend he's a 17th century French swash-buckler and there's a well deserved combination of egg and face. Oliver Platt fares no better and there's something about Sutherland that just rubs me the wrong way (I think it's his face, acting, posture and voice). 

If you see this man, Slumpy commands you to punch him in the face

Tim Curry is the only stand-out performance. His Richelieu is all evil Disney cackles and laughs and loves protracted bouts of exposition where he delivers his plans like a Bond villain before his inevitable comeuppance. 

The only thing better than the 1973 version is that the story is easier to follow and perhaps makes more sense. 

Would you watch it again? Nah, this is a pretty poor effort. 

Rating (out of 100%): It's a romp that is easily forgettable so with that in mind I give it a lacklustre 45%

The Three Musketeers (1973)

In 8 words or less: Boozing, gambling, fighting. The life of a Musketeer

What's it all About? The oft-told tale by Dumas of deception, cunning and quests for power in 17th century France. Evil Cardinal R (Chuck Heston) intends to take the Queen's position of power next to King Louis XIII by revealing details of her affair with the English Duke of Buckingham. On the side of the good guys are the self titled Musketeers (Reed, Chamberlin and Finlay) along with bumbling hopeful D'Artagnan (York).

Best bits? The first 20 minutes are cracking. The slapstick comedy elements are stop on as D'Artagnan travels to France to become a musketeer only to anger Porthos, Athos, Aramis and the vile Rochefort. 

Did it make you think thoughts? Wow, they sure flounced them costumes up in the 70's, didn't they. This film certainly looks the part with it's spectacular looking gowns, feathered hats and top notch tunics. No computer generated imaged here obviously and the sets look particularly authentic.

These boys sure do love cash and cleavage and to be honest they don't really give a monkeys about serving their king and this is one of the films failings. Scenes of gambling, boozing and cavorting are prevalent and definitely sidetrack the movie from it's main focus. There are also a few too many plot threads and non-needed characters that left me wondering why certain things were happening and characters motives. This also meant that the film was about 20 minutes too long. With so much going on, the two main villains get too little screen time to ham it up liked I'd hope they would. A missed opportunity.

Interestingly, during filming the producer shot two films at the same time without telling the cast. In 1974 The Four Musketeers was realised, a film the cast weren't aware of as they'd only been paid for one flick and not been told about it!

Captain Hook maybe?

Would you watch it again? Probably not. They are some good scenes and York is excellent but it just felt a bit like a rambling adventure film without much adventure.

Rating (out of 100%): Although this is considered somewhat of a classic by many, it must be remembered that The Chief is not the many. I was bored during too much of this film and therefore give it a French-bearded 48%

Worse than: The Three Musketeers (2011)
Better than: The Three Musketeers (1993)

The Untouchables (1987)

In 7 words or less: 'G-man' Elliot Ness vs Al Capone 

What's it all About? With police corruption rife, federal agent Elliot Ness and a small team attempt to strike at the heart of organised crime by bringing down the big dog himself, Al Capone (played brilliantly by Bob De Niro)

Best bits? The films closing 10 minute train station scene is full of tense, suspenseful drama and is a real tour de force. 

Did it make you think thoughts? Connery won the best supporting actor Oscar even though his Irish accent is one of the worst ever in movie history challenging Pitt's effort in The Devil's Own, Cruise in Far and Away and Lee Edwards in Blown Away. Oh well, we know that the Academy is pretty clueless. In fact, this film is full of strangeties. Not only did Connery somehow win an Oscar but the film also snagged one for Best Original Score. Surely only because it was by Ennio Morricone as most of it's up beat, friendly-feel jingles seem wildly out of place.

This guys head is about to be introduced to a baseball bat

By all accounts, the majority of the story is fictionalised but that's ok as the action and drama is quite exciting and entertaining throughout. It's fairly operatic in nature and De Plama's standard style-over-substance routine is evident but slightly reigned in by the David Mamet script. 

'Do you feel lucky punk?'

Would you watch it again? Yeah, it's ok, if a bit long, but it's light hearted, in places, take on gangsters v cops is good Sunday afternoon fare. 

Rating (out of 100%): I give The Untouchables a bootlegging 68%

Better than: Dick Tracy (1990)
Worse than: LA Confidential (1997)