Reviews

I never want to watch movies involving a novel that I really liked, especially historical novels. And especially when we're talking about the Three Musketeers. No movie can render properly the wit and charm of Dumas' prose (as well as Auguste Maquet, his main ghost writer). There is no way to convey through image what's described with such subtlety in writing.

But if it were just that, it would not be bad. My main problem is, every time Hollywood wants to paw Dumas' classic, it can't just leave the characters or the story the way the author created them. That's got to be the most annoying thing in the world.

In this version,I have to say I have been pleasantly pleased with a lot of the first part of the movie. Athos is quite close to his literary self, which in itself is a feat, since he is regularly the most disfigured character of them all (see Man In The Iron Mask for a good example of what not to do). Here, he's not that far from Dumas' character, and I must say that Matthew Macfadyen gives him a gravity and a melancholy that suits the part perfectly. The way D'Artagnan is introduced to the Three Musketeers follows the novel practically word for word, which made me really happy. Porthos is nowhere as colourful as the one in the novel,but at least he's not made to be this big dumb ridiculous caricature,which is already an improvement on Man In The Iron Mask, to name it again. Aramis is more a figurative role in this movie, and I guess it's better than completely change him.

But the movie begins and ends with stupidities and unforgivable liberties that have been taken with Dumas' chef d'oeuvre, for the only apparent reason that today's audience will go to see your movie only if there's an insane amount of frantic pointless action, no matter how ridiculous it is or far removed to the original story.

The Three Musketeers have never been in cahoots with Milady to steal stuff, she is from Athos' secret past and only as the novel progresses do you understand all the details of her connexions with him. Not in this movie - she becomes this ridiculous martial-arts-before-its-time-specialist, with bustle skirts. Then,Buckingham is this dastardly villain in a ... flying ship??!??!?!?!!!! The character is completely wrong, and the idea of the flying ship is absolutely laughable.

We haven't even talked about the dialogue yet. There is NOT ONE LINE of the movie that is truly memorable. D'Artagnan is immensely clever and fast-thinking in the novels; in this movie, he's just a teenager with a big head and nothing intelligent to say. And of course, Milady does not die, so we can be afflicted in due time with a sequel that will have absolutely nothing to do with "Vingt Ans Après", or anything resembling Alexandre Dumas' chef d'oeuvre.

I still gave 4 out of 10 because of the good points of the beginning of the movie. If you have never read the real book Les Trois Mousquetaires, and if you're not too demanding on intelligent dialogue and well-constructed stories, you might be able to stand it. I saw it because my husband wanted to - I myself knew too much that I would be ticked off after seeing it. Anyway, I will still sleep tonight and the world will not stop turning because of one more bad movie ;-)

Superb, both in its images and its storytelling. Truly magical and touching. It's a bit of a wistful, grave story though, could be hard for some children to get into it, but for the child in the adult, it's amazing. A beautiful way to revisit the history of movie-making. I loved every minute of it. The acting is good, the young actors are excellent, and Ben Kingsley is great. Sacha Baron Cohen strikes the right note and we know from the start that he is the "villain", but that he won't be that awful. Many references in the images and characters reflect some of the earliest films of history. If you're a buff about movie history, you'll have fun discovering theses references throughout the film; if you're not, you'll get to learn some really cool stuff. Go see it!!!

For all the rest that can be said about this beautiful film, there is one reason why I particularly love it: During the whole movie you see Emma Thompson portraying Elinor successfully as a young woman who deeply loves, but who chooses to conceal her own feelings so she will not bring reproach on herself or her loved ones, or even on less deserving people. Emma Thompson succeeds in conveying all of this in looks, small hesitations, subtle body language and never are we in disbelief. It all seems real and right, and you can truly believe that people never saw her feelings although at the same time you can see that they are real and very deep. I compare it for an example with Amanda Root's portrayal of Anne Elliott in Persuasion; I really had a hard time believing people did not see through her sad puppy eyes and sighs and nervous grabbing chairs and all these unsubtle ways she would play out Anne's inner torment. Anyway, to come back to Emma Thompson and Elinor, I know some people thought that her reaction at the end of the movie, when she finally learns that Edward is not married and that he wants to ask for her hand, is not really lady like and maybe even exaggerated. I could not agree less. This is the reaction of someone who has been loving and feeling and hurting for a long time, holding it in so she would hurt people around her the least possible; and on the moment of learning that finally, happiness is within her reach, that finally all this has not been for nothing, she just bursts out in uncontrollable crying and sobbing. I just could not hold my own tears when I saw the movie the first time, and believe me, I am not one to cry over sappy love stories usually. I just identified so much with her self-sacrifice of every moment for so long, which suddenly turned into too much happiness to hold inside. Wow! That, in and of itself, is one reason to see and cherish this version of Sense and Sensibility; and then there is so much more but I'll leave it at that!

I enjoyed the fact that many good moments of the novel are presented in this TV version that you cannot see in the movie, for lack of time. For example, the scene at Mrs Ferrars' little party, which shows the Steeles trying to make themselves liked by the lady, or when Willoughby comes back for an explanation. However, I thought the acting was just horrendous. Whereas I can truly believe in Elinor's love for Edward in the 1995 movie version with Emma Thompson, while believing at the same time in the utmost importance of her attempts at keeping her true feelings secret, in this case, I thought Irene Richard was absolutely not able to convey neither one of these feelings. She is just wooden. On top of that, I was constantly distracted by her prominent front teeth... I'm fully aware this is not a very good reason to dislike an actor, but this is just the truth, I could not stop looking at her mouth all the time! It just ruined it even more. Tracey Child in the role of Marianne has moments that are OK, but she overplays terribly most of the time, especially during her illness. Man! I wanted to slap her. And what about Fanny Dashwood's nervous breakdown!!! I think she ought to go in history for most unbelievable reaction to bad news. One of the actors I enjoyed more was Colonel Brandon, who was not hamming it up, and would let his love for Marianne shine through his facial expressions, his tone of voice. I liked him a lot. The best scene with him is when he starts talking about poetry with Marianne, and she starts seeing him in a new light; you don't see this change of heart as much in the 1995 movie version. Anyway, for a true Jane Austen lover, this version of Sense and Sensibility might be interesting for curiosity value and for the fact that it portrays a few scenes that you don't see elsewhere, but other than that, it's really not great at all.