When it comes to movie adaptations, I am not a purist. More than often the plot of a book HAS to be changed significantly (cutting minor characters, subplots...) to translate well on screen. But there are times when this revisionist attitude goes too far, and this version of The Three Musketeers is one of them.
The classic novel by Dumas père is a fairly straightforward action/adventure tale, so it's surprising they felt the need to dumb it down by ruining the character of Richelieu, radically altering the story and adding an abominable final act - which features scenes such as Richelieu shooting Aramis with a hidden gun and ludicrous boss battles.
Sutherland is not a bad choice as Athos, and could have been acceptable in a serious adaptation. Sheen and Platt, two capable performers, are miscast - or better, their characters have been rewritten to suit them. O'Donnell simply lacks the charisma and fire required by the part.
It's not entirely Curry's fault (albeit his Monty Python-ish performance is an embarrassment), but Richelieu is the movie's worst blunder: the Cardinal in the book is an intriguing, textured character, not a ghoul-like, sneering ubervillain. Other players (De Mornay, Wincott, Delpy) are better, although saddled with pathetic material.
Watch the 1948 adaptation instead (the one with Gene Kelly, Lana Turner and Vincent Price): a better movie, closer to the book and with MUCH BETTER sword duels.
4/10
The classic novel by Dumas père is a fairly straightforward action/adventure tale, so it's surprising they felt the need to dumb it down by ruining the character of Richelieu, radically altering the story and adding an abominable final act - which features scenes such as Richelieu shooting Aramis with a hidden gun and ludicrous boss battles.
Sutherland is not a bad choice as Athos, and could have been acceptable in a serious adaptation. Sheen and Platt, two capable performers, are miscast - or better, their characters have been rewritten to suit them. O'Donnell simply lacks the charisma and fire required by the part.
It's not entirely Curry's fault (albeit his Monty Python-ish performance is an embarrassment), but Richelieu is the movie's worst blunder: the Cardinal in the book is an intriguing, textured character, not a ghoul-like, sneering ubervillain. Other players (De Mornay, Wincott, Delpy) are better, although saddled with pathetic material.
Watch the 1948 adaptation instead (the one with Gene Kelly, Lana Turner and Vincent Price): a better movie, closer to the book and with MUCH BETTER sword duels.
4/10