Reviews

I am an hyper-fan of Dumas and have seen almost all possible adaptations of his work on screen, comics etc. Many reviews focus on feelings, look and feel, rhythm but what makes the genius of these movies beyond the fact that it is probably the only one of all the adaptations (including French ones before) which such care put in terms of location settings (150 days of filming and only 4 in studio, all the rest in beautiful historical locations all over France), is its unique straddle of being a producer-led piece in the good sense of the term (to create a balanced people-pleasing blockbuster) and being a mischievous literary re-appropriation of the spirit of Dumas which is much more intelligent than trying to stick to the D'Artagnan Romances trilogy to the letter. Because of these joyous 2nd/3rd layers of interpretations we can find in almost every detail and even in the casting choices, I was very pleased with this movie. It is a little jewel deserving its unique place alongside the other retelling for the past 120 years since George Melies' first silent film in 1903.

The original books are marvellous but ironically not cinegenic for purists. How many long witty discussions about obscure subjects, boredom on the siege of La Rochelle, listening in secret to others' conversations, waiting in caves, retelling of subplot stories, audiences at the Louvre or Treville's quarters, hours spent eating and drinking, days trying to find money for their army equipment and procuring it, how much writing of letters, verses or reading of the same, how much Latin being uttered by Aramis, how much long old school gallant courting praying in chapels or convents, and days on horseback or re-charging of old muskets can one endure on screen today? Without mentioning the fact that the fashion for noble men at the time was for tights, elegant high heeled silky pumps with ornate jewelled brooches, garish velvetty drapes, fom-fitting waist cinchers, puffed sleeves, powdered pale skin, feminine hands, feathers and lace galore if not even impractical collerettes...which today's audience would find distractingly effeminate in order to believe these young men to be competent and sexy special ops style soldiers. And it's been tried many times before and will be many times again. This is not what we want to see. We want to feel how these men would feel and understand how the spirits of camaraderie, loyalty, togetherness described by Dumas would develop in their circumstances. This movie's choice is an exercise in making people feel immersed and captured into believing what they see and feel and not about ambiental exactitude.

Now the directing and script choices. Seemingly killing off your hero in the first 10 minutes after having shown his courage, swordmanship and gentleman's gallantry (he does it to save a young woman) as well as almost making him cross paths with his arch enemy under lashing rain shows how ballsy this team of screenwriter are going to be. They are resurrecting d'Artagnan from the grave to make him take another form. Showing d'Artagnan forcing his way into the Musketeer barracks to get a chance of a 1 minute elevator pitch Renaissance style through the corridors of the Invalides' Cour de la Valeur with Captain de Tréville shows the kind of hero they are going to make of him: he forces his destiny. Nobody comes to tell him he is the chosen one, he comes to take what he dreams of like a young upstart of today. Covering the heroes in mud so that we believe they are the rowdy 17th century bastards we see on screen and not some of the biggest stars of French cinema playing iconic parts is a good choice even if controversial even to me. The truth is, even if it bugged me, the fact that I caught myself "waking up from" being transported by their story and forgetting that I was at the cinema when the director wanted me to, means he succeeded. Well played, Bourboulon.

The sequence shots seemingly single take for the opening fight scene in the woods, the sound effects, the different characterisations of the Musketeers through their fighting styles: Aramis feline, Athos injured old wolf but the most precise and deadly, Porthos brutal and hyperactive, d'Artagnan first fresh of training in his baptism of fire and stylish when committed. Showing them being bloodied, sweaty, muddy, tired and out-of-breath, losing their hearing, losing their bearings, afraid, at risk, looking out for each other in the middle of the action etc...Very good take. I understand the criticism about the somewhat shaky (not as bad as some have said) steadicam but the after-taste seeked is that of feeling like them, in the middle of chaotic action, as confused and scared as them, not as a spectator to their prowess: mission accomplished. We have seen many sword fights looking expertly choreographed and displaying the musketeers' swordsmanship in an almost too perfect unrealistic fashion. This is about feeling in the shoes of a musketeer as if you were playing them in a video game. You feeling almost as sweaty, out-of-breath or shivering as them and yes almost pukey from the camera shaking in the end is a good sign.

The fact that during the third fight scene in the chapel Bourboulon tore the script out, rewrote and re-choreographed the scene completely with the actors after a repetition with Vicky Krieps is genius. Yet again, a perfectly choreographed over-the-top rapier fight would bring little to the film and to the long history of adaptations of The Three Musketeers in cinema history. The Queen of France Anne of Austria has just realised she was set up and is trapped with a dagger in her hand maybe for the first time in her life in a little crypt at the Val-de-Grace chapel whilst her secret lover, enemy of France and Foreign Minister of England is fighting to defend them outside against several men who are tiering the place to pieces... We know she is quite adept with a pistol as we have seen her "pulling the magpie" in Chantilly just a few minutes prior but has she ever held a knife and been taught how to use it in hand-to-hand self-defence? Much more compelling to keep the camera on her and see and hear the combats through her point of view! Will she need to use this weapon to protect herself, will Buckingham be injured or die, will she be injured or die or have to injure or kill someone? If she makes it out alive, what will become of her honour and herself? Can she flee? Can she hide? Should she pray? Who set them up? Why has she been so careless? Oh God, are they coming in? We see all of this go through her face and moves thanks to Krieps' marvellous acting whilst also seeing glimpses of a raging swordfight at the door and then in the room. We are much more invested, much more scared, and much more transported as if witnessing a real trap encroaching suddenly on us with them. Well done.

The idea of making the Wars of Religion and the Huguenot Rebellions much more prominent in a nice wink to Queen Margot by Dumas and also to give much more weight to the upcoming Siege of La Rochelle is also a great move by the scriptwriters. We are fully contextualised into the importance of what is taking place for our characters when this is brought back to the centre and not solely in the background of the story. The fact that one of the Musketeer is made a Protestant is actually historically accurate too...even if not really explored in the book nor its adaptations in as much intimate detail. Ballsy move that is another great take. His brother Benjamin de La Fere is a mischievous wink to the real Benjamin of Rohan. Delicious.

The assassination attempt on the King during the wedding of his brother Gaston d'Orleans with the Countess of Montpensier showing rather than telling how these soldiers were the equivalent to the Presidential Protection Services of our time in 1627 is another great spark of creativity. As Louis XIII played by Garrel says, their father was assassinated by a Catholic zealot (François Ravaillac) so it is in fact not implausible, notwithstanding the grandiloquent occasion chosen. We feel like we understand their preoccupations since they are so similar to those of their descendants in ours. And that's without mentioning the obvious backhanded commentary and parallel with similar terrorism in our time and who it has always profited or how it has been triggered and instrumentalised then and now. Again, we feel kinship and also reflection.

The masked ball, all the costumes, the fake horse-riding pursuit on the cliffs of Dover with the old-school day-for-night lighting, the gorgeous sunflares and some of the shots looking like Renaissance paintings thanks to Quebecer DOP Nicolas Bolduc. Yes it is sometimes too dark but when the light is there, it is gorgeous and very much transports us into the time period which, in fact, was quite dark.

I could keep waxing lyrical. Just run to watch it! Several times as you will notice new little things every time. Even the final cliffhanger is an hommage to Dumas' style since the novel was at first a series in newspapers with many of them week-on-week! He was the first series showrunner playing with our feelings and they do the same...

Especially because if success follows we will get other adaptations of Twenty Years Later and The Viscount of Bragelonne by the same crew and that would be delightful! Considering the ingenuity of the writers, I cannot wait to see what they do with the first cinematic impersonation of Aniaba, the first and unique Black musketeer in History. I want to see that!