| Author |
Message |
Jean Thibodeau
|
 Posted: Sat 29 Oct, 2011 2:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Colt Reeves wrote: | Jean, the problem with that is that a lot of young people these days don't know the plot. Hell, I don't, and I know a lot more about this sort of thing than the average person (though I know enough not to trust Hollywood and can spot the obvious modern bastardizations).
So even if someone utterly butchers the plot there will be plenty of people walking away thinking they were more or less faithful to the original, even to the point of trying to correct someone who offers the real story.
That's the real scary thing here... |
Well that is always a problem with sloppy history or unfaithful to the original classics interpretations and many people not knowing the difference. 
The 1948 film is certainly available somewhere on DVD, it is entertaining and probably very faithful to the book version: A lot of the old classic films from the 1930 to 1960 era are worth having a look at as they seemed to be able to tell a story better and the acting was generally top quality with the better films ( There where certainly " B" movies with bad actors even then   ).
I'm old enough that most of these classic films where still being shown in the 1950 to 1965 period on T.V. ( In the 4 Channel Universe.  ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
  |
 |
Gottfried P. Doerler
|
| Posted: Sun 30 Oct, 2011 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I liked the 1993 version best. tim curry is THE cardinal for me
the only other version i`ve seen is the 1973 with chamberlain and heston, which i found a bit colourless.
beeing a bit repelled by the critics (film-dienst wrote "the cinematic equivalent of a casted boy-group )
i really enjoyed the new film, went to the cinema with no expectations and was surprised by an entertaining, never boring or too peripathetic film, that (and that was important to me) didn`t take itself too serious.
of course all was exaggerated, but always winking, i liked small details like the "renaissance-lagerfeld" or the black pseudo-fascistoid appearence of the cardinal`s guards.
So my conclusion: you can`t see it as a worthy successor of the older versions, but nevertheless it is a fast-going, entertaining action-movie, and no wasted money to see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Sun 30 Oct, 2011 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually sat with my wife on Friday night pulling trailers on YouTube. Might be that we're both getting old but we both groaned seeing what sure looked like ninjas coming out of some water, fantasy airships over Versailles, and clear suspension of Newton's laws. All that said, if we were watching a trailer for something other than the Three Musketeers, we probably would have been intrigued.
As it is I figure this will make it to the dollar movies very quickly and then maybe we'll see it, if there is absolutely nothing else we can do at the time (including the option of seeing a romantic comedy, perhaps even one with Jennifer Aniston or Sandra Bullock in it <insert virtual male groan here>).
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Sun 30 Oct, 2011 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Colt Reeves wrote: | Jean, the problem with that is that a lot of young people these days don't know the plot. Hell, I don't, and I know a lot more about this sort of thing than the average person (though I know enough not to trust Hollywood and can spot the obvious modern bastardizations).
So even if someone utterly butchers the plot there will be plenty of people walking away thinking they were more or less faithful to the original, even to the point of trying to correct someone who offers the real story.
That's the real scary thing here... |
What is the original? Dumas's fictional version (1844) was loosely inspired by Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras' fictional 'Mémoires de M. d'Artagnan' (1700), which was loosely inspired by historical events in the 17th century. So this story has been evolving for a long time!
But anyone who has not read Dumas' work should do themselves a favor and buy the three musketeers; I promise you will enjoy it far more than any movie, it will entertain you much longer, and a paperback is about half the cost of theatre movie.
|
|
 |
|
|
Anders Backlund
|
| Posted: Sun 30 Oct, 2011 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julian Reynolds wrote: | | Why 'Steampunk-ify' a classic like the Three Musketeers? |
Because they've made like a million Three Musketeers movies already?
It's probably the most recycled concept in the history Hollywood. Sooner or later you have to throw something new into the mix to keep it fresh.
| Marko Susimetsa wrote: |
Just came from seeing this movie and I must agree with this statement. They really failed to sell the characters. |
See, this is a valid concern. Putting airships into the Three Musketeers is all in good fun. Failing to make the characters entertaining and relatable is a huge problem, though.
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
Never really liked the Lester version that much, but that is because to me the 1948 version with Gene Kelly is the Gold standard I use when judging a real 3 Musketeer movie. |
Thanks God! Someone who agrees with me!
I'm really too young to have grown up with the 70s version, which I actually found mildly off-putting when I did get a chance to see it, But I did see the Gene Kelly version once or twice growing up and really liked it. The only other Three Musketeers movie for me is the 1993 Disney version, which I still think did its job as a swashbuckler adventure movie well enough.
| J.D. Crawford wrote: |
But anyone who has not read Dumas' work should do themselves a favor and buy the three musketeers; I promise you will enjoy it far more than any movie, it will entertain you much longer, and a paperback is about half the cost of theatre movie. |
While I did love the first half of the novel, I honestly think a few ninjas and airships in the second half might actually have been an improvement.
The sword is an ode to the strife of mankind.
"This doesn't look easy... but I bet it is!"
-Homer Simpson.
|
|
|
|
|
Marko Susimetsa
|
| Posted: Sun 30 Oct, 2011 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poured some of my thoughts into a short blog piece. Please, point out if you spot me making a mistake as I talk about the swords.
http://susimetsa.blogspot.com/2011/10/three-m...verse.html
I avoided spoilers as much as I could, but if you are really afraid of them, please don't click on the link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrik W
|
| Posted: Sun 30 Oct, 2011 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What is the original? Dumas's fictional version (1844) was loosely inspired by Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras' fictional 'Mémoires de M. d'Artagnan' (1700), which was loosely inspired by historical events in the 17th century. So this story has been evolving for a long time!
Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras' work was not fictional. He and d'Artagnan were incarcerated in the bastille together from Sept 1698-march 1699 where he wrote the memoirs.
|
|
|
|
|
Marko Susimetsa
|
| Posted: Sun 30 Oct, 2011 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The original in the case of the movies is naturally the fictional novel that they all claim to be based on: Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers.
Even the 2011 version claims to be "based" on the novel, although in truth they should have just said "inspired by".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben Coomer
|
| Posted: Sun 30 Oct, 2011 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I saw this movie on Friday and I have to say it was the most fun I've had hating a movie since Uwe Boll's "Dungeon Siege" movie. The acting was terrible, with some giving horribly overwrought performances (Bloom, King Louis) while others could have been replaced with a Speak and Spell and no changes would have happened (Athos, Aramis). But the action sequences were really entertaining, so I found myself just wishing they'd stop acting and take out their swords. If they had just spent the entire movie fighting without much dialogue, the move would have been improved ten fold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. S. Smith
Location: Central CA Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Posts: 236
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Nov, 2011 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Karl Knisley wrote: | Hello
Whats wrong with, Milla Jovovich,in tight outfits???:-) Dont go see a movie,based on what reviews you read.The critics hated ,"The 13th Warrior",and that was one of my favorite movies ever. |
I agree 100% on everything you just said. I loved the 13th warrior and you can never tire of watching Milla Jovovich.
As the rider of a "roadster" series BMW motorcycle, I am of course in love with Milla (don't tell my wife). I have an R1200R. Milla rode a K1200R in Resident Evil: Extinction, and an R1150R in Ultraviolet.
I have come to realize that my taste in movies is usually the complete opposite of "professional reviewers". There are some things I get pretty anal about in movies. For instance you can't have a war movie about a blackhawk helicopter getting shot down and use a Huey instead for the entire movie (can't remember the crappy movie where I saw that). But for the most part, I am pretty relaxed when it comes to movies. They don't have to be 100% realistic.
The new Three Musketeers looks right up my alley. I tried to go see it last weekend but couldn't make it happen. hopefully this weekend. And I agree with those who said the 1993 version was the best so far. I enjoyed all the characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Murd
Location: Pärnu, Estonia Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Sun 13 Nov, 2011 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you can stand the quality and care to dig up subtitles then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc34z9ydXKM&feature=fvwrel
Less focus on swordplay, quite a lot of focus on singing. Follows the story quite closely.
Edit: This post was a reply for a question about Russian version of Three Musketeers (deleted)
Merlon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic