Maidgethma Wonderfully offbeat film!

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

advokatdjordjevic I stoped watching this movie the moment when Cardinal Richelieu addressed the Queen (Ann of Spain) with words "Austria loss is our gain". I mean yeah she is from Habsburg dynasty but Spanish line not Austrian. If you want to make a movie the first thing you should do is to read a little about historical characters. Movie is bad. Acting is bad, plot is bad, costumes are bad it's not even for children.

ThatMOVIENut Athos (Keifer Sutherland), Porthos (Oliver Platt), Aramis (Charlie Sheen) and D'Artagnan (Chris O'Donnel) team up to battle the nefarious schemes of Cardinal Richelieu (Tim Curry) to usurp power in 17th century France. Now told under the name of Walt Disney Productions, and from the director of Bill & Ted and The Mighty Ducks, Stephen Herek.Although it may not the most accurate or layered adaptation of Dumas' tale, Disney's 90s version still offers a decent swashbuckler. This is down to a charismatic cast, special points towards the great Michael Wincott and his icy voice as the deadly Rochefort, alongside a wonderfully charming Platt as the bon-vivant Porthos, who provides the brunt of the comedy in the film with his hands-off lifestyle. Throw in some nifty and uncluttered sword fights shot with patience and grace instead of clumsy shaky cam, and even a playful yet also thrilling score by the late Michael Kamen, and these go a way to help out.However, don't expect a lot of the intricacies, extensive development and politics of the original story, or the self awareness of the more renowned Richard Lester films of the 70s. This as basic and lean a 'Musketeers' telling as you'll find anywhere. Plus, being a 90s Disney live-action film, it's super safe and predictable, even for a story as often told as this one. You can tell who's good, who's bad and what happens next right from the word go, thanks to often hammy performances from the support cast, as well as rather basic, rote dialogue.Regardless, as far as its brethren of that era go, this is one of the company's better live-action efforts amidst a slew of lame remakes and comedian star vehicles. If you may not be in the mood of the wilder hijinks of 'Pirates' or 'National Treasure', this should fit the bill just fine.

brainpower-302-398622 After seeing almost every version of The Three Musketeers i watched this version expecting to be bored to death. But how can a movie with Tim Curry and Charlie Sheen be boring ? This version was fun to watch from start to finish even though it had some bad choices ( Hugh' O'Connor, Chris O'Donnell) the storyline was OK and the acting brilliant. Athos , Porthos and Aramis were finally portrayed by good actors and Curry was a scheming bastard but funny at the same time.I still have to see a good D'Artagnan and this still wasn't it , O'Donnell came out and the least important character and his acting didn't help.All in all, a fun version and i hoped it would be the last but it looks like i was wrong. Too bad they didn't the Man in the Iron Mask with these actors, it would have been hilarious and we wouldn't have to see the DiCaprio version with some has beens Musketeers.

berrrchills3 There are about 130+ reviews on this film and while I have not read every single one, I have read a handful. What I am about to say may have already been stated by someone else, but like I said, I have not read every single review. The reviews that I did happen to look through were quite critical of the film. The most popular critique was that it was not an accurate adaptation of Alexander Dumas' novel. I am hear to tell you that that's the point. This version of The Three Musketeers was never about being an accurate adaptation. While it highlights key components of the story and some history (like who the Musketeers were, etc) it was meant to focus more on (to quote Charlie Sheen on the Behind the Scenes on the DVD) "the camaraderie. the essence of brotherhood." I also noticed people complaining it's not a family film. Of course it's not. It's not just Disney it's also a Touchstone film. Yes, I know Disney (either owns or is merged with Touchstone. Something like that.) Either way, it doesn't have to be strictly the Disney we know.So if you're looking for a more accurate adaptation of the novel then this film is not for you. I would recommend one of the versions that was created before 1993. I think the one made sometime in the 40s is more accurate and I believe the one from the 70s may also be more accurate for certain people's tastes.