Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

SimonJack This MGM lavish production of "The Three Musketeers" rivals the very best of the swashbucklers. Others have noted the traditional three heroes of this genre – Douglas Fairbanks, Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power. They starred in many of the best of this film genre, playing Zorro, Robin Hood and a host of pirates and cavaliers. A couple of other top swashbucklers come to mind, mainly for the two films they excelled in – Stewart Granger in "Scaramouche" (1952) and Ronald Colman in "The Prisoner of Zenda" (1937). I mention all of these because the name Gene Kelly doesn't as readily come to mind when thinking of swordplay with lots of acrobatics. But this film firmly plants him in "The Three Musketeers" as among the best of the genre. As other viewers have commented, this movie shines on all levels. It's especially excellent for its great color, for an excellent screenplay adaptation, and for a huge cast of talented performers who delight and entertain in their roles. I think three roles stand out. Lana Turner seems to exude evil in her portrayal. A masterful job, indeed. Vincent Price had a much smaller part, but no one could better portray the sinister, conniving, scheming and crooked Richelieu. One word comes to mind for this part as played by Price – dastardly. The third, of course, is Gene Kelly in the starring role as D'Artagnan. What he may have lacked in suave appearance compared to Errol Flynn and Ty Power, he more than made up for in his sheer athletic and acrobatic abilities. All the great swashbuckler actors had good moves and sword play, but Kelly's performance here outshines them all. The word that comes to mind for the swiftness, deftness and agility in his moves is "smooth." He made it look effortless. And no other movie I can think of had any better sword play than this one. Kelly excelled at that as well. Throw in a good amount of humor with such an affable character and we have a perfect D'Artagnan.It all adds up to one immense piece of entertainment and fun. This great film's suitable for the whole family.

Julia Arsenault (ja_kitty_71) I love a swashbuckling adventure, now and then. And also I as said many times, I love a literary film too. Especially if the film is based on a book that I have like The Three Musketeers and I had read the abridged version. There had been many film adaptations based on the classic novel by Alexandre Dumas, and like I said before, I am not one take sides on which is better. So I would say I love this film starring Gene Kelly as the hero D'Artagnan and a young Vincent Price (in his 30s) as Richelieu. The impressive supporting cast features a young Angela Lansbury as Queen Anne, June Allyson as Constance D'Artagnan's love interest, and Lana Turner at the height of her achingly alluring beauty as the evil Lady de Winter...De Winter's like a Black Widow. And I also love the 1993 film version with Chris O'Donnell,Kiefer Sutherland and Tim Curry.A scene I love in the film, is when D'Artagnan was peeking in on Constance, it was funny. When I had read the book, I had found a few things quite different from the film. In the book, Constance is the landlord's wife not God-daughter...O.M.G! another man's wife! hmmm...I kind of like God-daughter better. Also in the book, Constance didn't go to England to be safe from Richelieu, but in a convent. And one more thing: Milady didn't stab Constance, she poisoned her.

edwagreen An absolute hideous production. Alexander Dumas must have turned over in his grave.Despite a terrific cast, the writing is unbelievably bad even with the plush color settings by Natalie Kalmus.Gene Kelly dances but in a different way here. He starts off as a complete jerk but soon proves himself to the other musketeers as a great swordsman.I love the way that Richelieu is not depicted as a cardinal but as the first minister. Always a shame to distort history in Hollywood spectacles. Lana Turner is lovely as Countess de Winters, even with all her evil. Poor June Allyson. Her simplicity just does her in. Only in films could they pull that off.Van Heflin looked like he was ready for a few more drinks after this film. Even the usual Vincent Price does not really have the opportunity to aggressively show evil here. At the end scene, he is cast off like a natural idiot.Frank Morgan as the king is his usual buffoon self. Angela Lansbury as his Queen briefly appears and does relatively nothing here. As de Winters' lady in waiting, Patricia Medina weeps a little. Actually, she should have cried more in this atrocious production.

aimless-46 "The Three Musketeers" (1948) is probably the most spectacularly miscast film in cinema history. This will be either hilarious or painful; depending on a viewer's sense-of-humor perversity quotient. The idea of casting Lana Turner and June Allyson in a period costume drama was absurd on its face, but the results are actually worse than you could imagine. Turner was arguably the least talented of the big-name actors of her era. Her appeal was strictly physical and she was serviceable playing herself in "Andy Hardy" type stuff. But she simply had no ability (even with good direction) to play anyone else, let alone an exotic villainess like the Dumas' Lady De Winter. And by the late 1940's the aging process had hit her particularly hard; taking away any trace of the youthful glow that had seemed so magical early in her career. At the time of casting Turner (still clueless that she had lost the physical appeal that had made her a star and apparently unaware that her career was already headed steeply downhill) was reluctant to take a "supporting" role. Then there is Allyson; she had a clue about acting but her presence brought no magic to the screen. Her most successful roles were as contemporary tomboys, not as an inspirational love interest in a lavish costume drama. Allyson was all Bronx and that just doesn't fit the tone of the Dumas classic. As D'Artagnan, Gene Kelly at least provides a reason to watch "The Three Musketeers". He is physically suited to the role and handles the acrobatic action sequences quite well. But Kelly was more dancer than actor. As someone said, his acting is much like Bob Hope without the comedic sensibility. I found it hard to keep from thinking about his faux silent film part in "Singing In the Rain". Vincent Price's Richelieu was probably fine in 1948, but his subsequent ghoul movie and "Batman" fame works against him with today's viewers. You won't recognize him in costume, but once you hear the half-witted Planchet speak you will say: "Hey that's Keenan Wynn". Unlike Price, Wynn's wide range of subsequent character roles don't undermine his performance. "The Three Musketeers" is set in 17th century France as young D'Artagnan joins the three best swordsmen in Paris: Athos (Van Heflin), Porthos (Gig Young), and Aramis (Robert Coote). Oz's Wizard, Frank Morgan, plays King Louis XIII, another astonishing bit is miscasting but the part is too small for that to be of much significance. The King and Richelieu are at odds over going to war with England, but Richelieu has the goods on the Queen (Angela Lansbury) and hopes to force a war. There is action, romance, great production design, and an excellent underlying story. Unfortunately the humorous casting decisions make it extremely difficult to suspend disbelief and get into the film as anything more than an old movie. Turner's stuff has mock- fest potential but she is thankfully only a "supporting" character. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.