#source: three musketeers 2011

[hiddcngifpacks]

LUKE EVANS as ARAMIS ; THE THREE MUSKETEERS (2011)

as requested, click on the source link to be redirected to the gif page. all of these gifs were made by me from scratch, so i ask that you respect my work and don’t claim as your own. please like and reblog if you have found these useful. use them at your leisure for rp'ing. enjoy!

gif count: 70 content warning: nothing, really

more upcoming packs here

[magistralucis]

2025 Translation Tuesday Entry - 14/52 Title: Зеленоглазое такси (Green-Eyed Taxi) Artist: Михаил Боярский (Mikhail Boyarsky) Album: Каждый Возьмет Свое (Each Takes Their Own, 1989)

---------------------------

Вот и осталось лишь снять усталость (So: all that's left now is to shake my tiredness) И этот вечер мне душу лечит (And this evening will heal my spirit)

О-о-о-о! Зеленоглазое такси (Oh-oh-oh-oh, my dear green-eyed taxi) О-о-о-о! Притормози, притормози (Oh-oh-oh-oh, slow down, slow down for me) О-о-о-о! Ты отвези меня туда (Oh-oh-oh-oh, you'll take me to that place) О-о-о-о! Где будут рады мне всегда (Oh-oh-oh-oh, where they're always glad to see me) Всегда... (Always...)

Там и не спросят, где меня носит (There, no one will ask where I have been) Там - я-то знаю - все понимают (There, I know for sure, they'll all understand.)

О-о-о-о! Зеленоглазое такси (Oh-oh-oh-oh, my dear green-eyed taxi) О-о-о-о! Притормози, притормози (Oh-oh-oh-oh, slow down, slow down for me) О-о-о-о! Ты отвези меня туда (Oh-oh-oh-oh, you'll take me to that place) О-о-о-о! Где будут рады мне всегда (Oh-oh-oh-oh, where they're always glad to see me) Всегда... (Always...)

О-о-о-о! Зеленоглазое такси (Oh-oh-oh-oh, my dear green-eyed taxi) О-о-о-о! Притормози, притормози (Oh-oh-oh-oh, slow down, slow down for me) О-о-о-о! Ты отвези меня туда (Oh-oh-oh-oh, you'll take me to that place) О-о-о-о! Где будут рады мне всегда (Oh-oh-oh-oh, where they're always glad to see me) Всегда... (Always...)

-----------------

I was actually tricked into discovering this song! 😂

So if you've followed me for a few years, you know I'm a fan of Rammstein. I was doing some research for one of the bands they covered a long time ago when a strange video landed on my recommends. Rammstein, 'Green-Eyed Taxi'. I was very baffled to see this, since in all my years of R+ fandom, I'd never even heard of this song nor the cover.

It wasn't impossible. The band members of Rammstein do speak/understand Russian, and they have covered Russian-language songs before, including the one I was actually researching. (I'll get to that one I promise it's just scheduled later in the year jdhfhdhdhh) Whatever the case, I had to check it out.

This... this is not a Rammstein song. Or one of their videos. 🤣 The cover is in German, and it is conscious of Rammstein's style, but it was sung by the composer and musician Alexander Pushnoy (b. 1975) who is sadly beyond the scope of this post. He does have a short video explaining his process for the cover, though, which I found to be worth appending.

As an extra, I've also included the actual source for the clip shown in the Rammstein, 'Green-Eyed Taxi' video. It is a short film titled The Gift. It was made for the project Parallel Lines (2010-2011), where directors were given the same short sequence of dialogue and challenged to produce their own takes on it. This piece was directed by Carl Rinsch of 47 Ronin (2013) 'fame', though as of 2025 he seems to be in a lot of legal trouble, so mayhaps I'll just leave it there. 🥴

But what am I talking about? The song, yes. I am told 'Зеленоглазое такси' is a well-known song, a real oldie but goodie; while many other versions of this song exist, I'm focusing on the classic one, sung by Mikhail Boyarsky (b. 1949) in 1987. Born in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) and still resident there, Boyarsky is an actor and musician with a very extensive filmography/discography. Stage, TV, film, music, he's done it all. His most notable role was in the 1978 TV series D'Artagnan and the Three Musketeers, in which he played the lead role.

His take on 'Зеленоглазое такси' is the best-known version of the song. He is not, however, the writer of the song: that would be Oleg Kvasha (b. 1958), distinguished musician and composer, who also wrote the rest of the songs in today's album (Каждый Возьмет Свое, 1989). Kvasha wrote many famous songs in the 80s, and at the end of the decade Melodiya (the state record label) released a compilation album of his best hits, where each singer would sing two of his songs. 'Зеленоглазое такси' was given to Boyarsky, and the rest is history. For reference, Oleg Kvasha's original version is here, as well as his post-2000s techno remix.

Finally, that lamp setup is what is meant by a taxi being 'green-eyed'. If the green light was on, the taxi was free. Back when I lived in Korea, the taxis there had a similar arrangement, except the lights spelled out '빈 차' (lit. 'free/vacant car') instead. Yes, this song brings out a lot of nostalgia in me... even though the context I first encountered it in was nothing like what I'd expected. 😆

[skylarynns-silverado]

Sources

Maverick 1957-1962

Wanted: Dead or Alive 1958-1961

Rawhide 1959-1965

The Magnificent Seven 1960

A Fistful of Dollars 1964

For a Few Dollars More 1965

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly 1966

Hang 'Em High 1968

Once Upon a Time in the West 1969

Support Your Local Sheriff 1969

Two Mules for Sister Sara 1970

Support Your Local Gunfighter 1971

Joe Kidd 1972

High Plains Drifter 1973

The Outlaw Josey Wales 1976

The New Maverick 1978

Young Maverick 1979-1980

Bret Maverick 1981-1982

Rustlers' Rhapsody 1985

Silverado 1985

Young Guns 1988

Quigley Down Under 1990

Young Guns II 1990

The Three Musketeers 1993

Maverick 1994

The Marshal 1995

The Quick and the Dead 1995

The Magnificent Seven 1998-2000

Firefly 2002

Supernatural 2005-2020

3:10 to Yuma 2007

The Three Musketeers 2011

Six of Crows 2015

The Magnificent Seven 2016

The Witcher 2019-2023

The Hunters 2020

Hell's Coming With Me 2021

Loaded Gun 2021

War Cry 2022

1873 Campaign 2023

Welcome Westward 2023-2024

Inserts 2024

[thisreviewerslife]

There is always the faintest stumbling block when sitting down to watch a foreign language film. For the first couple of minutes, as your brain struggles to get used to the detachment of the acting from the words being spoken, it somehow feels as if the actors aren't doing a good enough job -- you're forced to read something extra simply to understand what is going on. Of course, the feeling inevitably soon passes, especially when the film is as good as The Three Musketeers: D'Artagnan proves to be.

Alexandre Dumas's timeless tale of a young man swept along by the tide of religious and political intrigue has been adapted for the screen many times in the past; from Douglas Fairbanks buckling swashes in the 1920s, through peak 1990s casting of Young Guns' Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland, on up to the most recent pseudo-steampunk re-imagining in 2011 by Resident Evil helmer Paul W.S. Anderson. The most well-known version is probably the 1973 film that starred Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain and Michael York which, like this new French release, made the sensible decision to split the lengthy book into two separate films.

The plot of this first movie, while broadly hewing to that of the 1844 novel, does take a few liberties with the source material. Young D'Artagnan (François Civil) travels to Paris with hopes of joining the famous Musketeers, accidentally picks a fight with three of its most celebrated members, impresses them with his swordplay and joins them in a race to retrieve the Queen's jewels and save their friend from the gallows. In the background, the political machinations of Catholics and Protestants, cardinals and kings drive the plot forward without getting bogged down in the details that make the novel hard going at times. Some of the stakes are raised -- a murder leads to one of the titular three being framed, resulting in a race against time to prove his innocence -- while some are lowered; Constance is now young and unmarried, leaving room for romance with D'Artagnan. Loyal servant Planchet is also, sadly, missing from this telling of the story.

The direction by Martin Bourboulon is universally excellent; the chemistry between the main cast (including Vincent Cassel as Athos, Pio Marmaï as Porthos, Romain Duris as Aramis, and Lyna Khoudri as Constance) sparkles, and the action scenes, although few and far between, ratchet up the pace to near martial arts levels: the initial fight scene wherein the four leads take on the Cardinal's men is cut and blocked almost like a scene from 2011's The Raid; the score is silent, leaving only the grunts and shouts of the cast (who trained for six months by an Olympic swordsman) as they whirl and parry around and over the always-moving camera. The sets, too, are exquisite -- the film was shot mainly on location all over France -- and the lighting at times recalls the famous candlelit scenes in Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (1975).

Eva Green's Milady is unfortunately a little one-note, having not much more to do apart from look sly and self-satisfied whenever she's on screen, but Phantom Thread's Vicky Krieps makes the most of her limited screen time as the two-timing Queen Anne at the centre of the film's two-hour runtime.

Overall, it's easily one of the best interpretations of the beloved novel (not counting the near-perfect Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds, of course); it remains to be seen whether the second part, The Three Musketeers: Milady, set to be released in December 2023, can stick the landing.

9/10

[ikemenomegas]

15 & 17 for the ask game!! :)

15. a movie you do not recommend but love to watch it anyways

the first movie that comes to mind is "red dawn". i never recommend it bc it feel like people look at you a certain way when you do 😅 but it has a sincere and simple plot and at the time it released, superhero and other movies with plans for 5 movie plots were once again becoming The Thing and it was nice to get something self contained

robert downey jr's sherlocks fall in here too. There's just fun, not super serious or interested in the source material lol but the aesthetic. 2011 three musketeers is also pretty awful but a good casual occasional rewatch

i've also watched a lot of ok to good but cancelled tv for certain actors lol but the question game only has movie so those will remain for now unamed

17. favourite street food

I legitimately love takoyaki. it's the perfect street food. three to five balls that are very filling or good to share. And I can't make it on my own, which is a requirement for any kind of food i purchase with any regularity

[jasonsutekh]

The Three Musketeers (2011)

The musketeers with their confident new recruit are asked to travel to England to recover stolen jewels that could change the future of France forever and foil an evil scheme.

It seemed to be an effective enough retelling of the source material and D’Artagnan had an attitude true to the character. There were a fair few famous locations which looked the right period and the effects used to create the airships were completely anachronistic but still added enough of a twist to an old story to be engaging.

There wasn’t really enough time to get to know that characters fully so unless you’ve read the original story or seen other adaptations then it wouldn’t be entirely easy to form connections with them. The weakest of the bunch being Milady who just didn’t seem expressive enough for such a devious and changeable character.

Some of the action sequences were rather long so it was useful that at least a few of the actors are proficient in swordsmanship for real and the choreography for those fights was varied and technical enough to develop realistically as well as having basic entertainment value.

Having so many extended action sequences meant that there wasn’t so long for actual character development, and few seemed to actually change or learn anything, they just take turns getting the upper hand. In a way having modern versions of period technology felt a bit of a cheat since it doesn’t honor itself as an adaptation and makes it more like science fiction.

4/10 -It’s below average, but only just!-

[savage-kult-of-gorthaur]

"THEY TOOK AWAY HIS WORLD... NOW, HE'S FIGHTING AN EMPIRE TO GET IT BACK..."

PIC INFO: Resolution at 1280×1914 -- Spotlight on a DC house ad for "Ironwolf," c. 1973, a fictional character who appeared in the last three issues of "Weird Worlds," a comics anthology series published by American company DC Comics from 1972 to 1974. Artwork by series & character creator, Howard Chaykin.

EXTRA INFO: Ironwolf was influenced by the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs, Robin Hood, and the 1948 film "The Three Musketeers."

Sources: https://diversionsofthegroovykind.blogspot.com/2011/08/if-you-blinked-you-missediron-wolf.html, Wikipedia, various, etc...

[djcanipe99]

Harry,Percy : Enjoying the show?

Bellatrix ,Clarisse : Are you always this cocky?

Harry,Percy : Only on Tuesdays... and whenever beautiful women are involved.

Bellatrix,Clarisse: So, you think I'm beautiful?

Harry,Percy : Actually, it's Tuesday.

[incorrectwcuniverse]

Tinsley: Are you always this cocky?

Ricky: Only on Tuesdays and when beautiful people are involved

Tinsley: So you think I'm beautiful?

Ricky: Actually, it's Tuesday

[hatoyume]

I think about that since I rewatch three musketeers last week and it's pretty bad but I had to do it. Because, really, I'm in this fandom since like two week and we already trend something like three or four time (and it's Tuesday)

[selphiahaven]

[overthinkingbelle]

Aaron Tveit appreciation post.

Movie appearances/roles:

2008-Ghost Town (Anesthesiologist)

2010-Howl (Peter Orlovsky)

2011-Girl Walks into a Bar (Henry)

2012-Premium Rush (Kyle)

2012-Les Misérables (Enjolras)

2013-A Dream of Flying (The Young Man) Short film

2015- Big Sky (Pru)

2016-Undrafted (John "Maz" Mazzello)

2016-Better Off Single (Charlie) Previously named Stereotypically You

2017-Created Equal (Tommy Reilly)

2018-Out of Blue (Tony Silvero)

TV roles/appearances:

2009–2012 Gossip Girl (William "Tripp" van der Bilt III) 10 episodes

2010 Ugly Betty (Zachary Boule) Episode: "All the World's a Stage"

2010 Law & Order: Special Victims Unit(Jan Eyck) Episode: "Beef"

2011 Body of Proof (Skip) Episode: "Point of Origin"

2011 Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (Stevie Harris) Episode: "Personal Fouls"

2011 The Good Wife (Spencer Zschau) Episode: "Executive Order 13224"

2013–2015 Graceland (Mike Warren) Main cast; 38 episodes

2016 Grease Live (Danny Zuko) Television movie

2016 BrainDead (Gareth Ritter) Main cast; 13 episodes

2017–21 The Good Fight (Spencer Zschau) 3 episodes

2019 The Code (Matt Dobbins) 5 episodes

2020 One Royal Holiday (Prince James Gallant) Television movie

2021 American Horror Stories (Adam) Episode: "Rubber(wo) Man Part Two", (Jay Gantz) Episode: "Feral"

2021–present Schmigadoon! (Danny Bailey) Main cast; 6 episodes

Theatre works:

2003 Footloose (Garvin) Merry-Go-Round Playhouse [2003 Regional production]

2004 Rent (Steve, u/s Roger, Mark) US national tour [January – December 2004 National tour replacement]

2005–08 Hairspray (Link Larkin) US national tour [August 2005 – July 2006 First national tour replacement], Neil Simon Theatre [July 18, 2006 – January 18, 2007; April 1 – May 4, 2008 Broadway replacement]

2007 Calvin Berger (Matt) Barrington Stage Company: [July 3–14, 2007 Original regional production]

2007 The Three Musketeers (D'Artagnan) North Shore Music Theatre [August 21 – September 9, 2007 Regional production]

2008–10 Next to Normal (Gabe Goodman) Second Stage Theatre [January 16 – March 16,2008 Original Off-Broadway production], Arena Stage [November 21, 2008 – January 18, 2009 Original Washington, D.C. production], Booth Theatre [March 27, 2009 – January 3, 2010 Original Broadway production]

2008 Saved! (Dean) Playwrights Horizons

[May 10 – June 22, 2008 Original Off-Broadway production]

2008–09 Wicked (Fiyero Tigelaar) Gershwin Theatre [June 24 – November 9, 2008;

January 20 – March 9, 2009Broadway replacement]

2009–11 Catch Me If You Can (Frank Abagnale, Jr.) 5th Avenue Theatre [July 28 – August 16, 2009 Original Seattle production] Neil Simon Theatre: [March 11 – September 4, 2011 Original Broadway production]

2010 Rent (Roger Davis) Hollywood Bowl: [August 6–8, 2010 Limited engagement]

2014–15 Assassins (John Wilkes Booth) Menier Chocolate Factory: [November 21, 2014 – February 8, 2015 Off-West End revival]

2017Company (Robert) Barrington Stage Company: [August 10 – September 10, 2017 Regional revival]

2018–22; 2023 Moulin Rouge!(Christian) Emerson Colonial Theatre: [July 10 – August 19, 2018 Original Boston production] Al Hirschfeld Theatre: [June 28, 2019 – March 11, 2020, September 24, 2021 – May 8, 2022, January 17 – April 9, 2023 Original Broadway production; paused due to COVID-19 , Won 2020 Tony Award for Best Actor in a Musical, Returning for limited engagement in 2023]

Feb. 9-May 12, 2023 Sweeney Todd (title role) Broadway revival, Lunt-Fontanne Theater (replacement)

Source: Wikipedia

[moviemunchies]

I think I vaguely remembered that some reviewer from Channel Awesome (not Doug; Last Angry Geek, maybe?) said that the Disney live-action version of The Three Musketeers was his favorite, so I had kind  of wanted to watch it for a while. And once I got Disney+ I figured I might as well, since it’s there.

It’s, um… alright it’s a good movie, okay, but it’s not a great one.

So our story goes like this: D’Artagnan is a young man who wants to become a musketeer because his father was one, and he has a chip on his shoulder because his father died trying (and failing) to defend the previous king from assassination. He travels to Paris only to find that Cardinal Richelieu has had the musketeers disbanded. The only ones who haven’t given up their swords and tabards are the titular three: Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, who as per tradition bump into D’Artagnan and he ends up challenging all three to duels. When they end up in a fight with the Cardinal’s Red Guard they bond, and though D’Artagnan gets captured they free him.

But in captivity, D’Artagnan learns of a dastardly plot! Richelieu is planning to forge an alliance with England and take more power in France, perhaps even the throne itself! So it’s up to our heroes to race towards Calais and stop the Cardinal’s spy before he can undermine the king’s authority!

Sword fights ensue.

TV Tropes claims that this movie was put into production due to the success of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves as plenty of studios wanted to make historical action dramas in that vein. Is this the case? I don’t know, but watching the movie, I can kind of see it. It’s a historical drama in Europe with American leads, a hammy villain, and a lot of liberties taken with the source material.

First things first: I don’t mind that no one’s speaking with a French accent; in many adaptations they use British accents, which for the most part are almost as anachronistic and out of place as the American accents in this movie. That wasn’t too distracting. What WAS distracting is that Chis O’Donnell is playing D’Artagnan, Kiefer Sutherland is playing Athos, and Martin Sheen is Aramis. This isn’t their fault, because they weren’t known for the roles I know them from back then, but I find it really hard to take it seriously when the guy from 24 is talking to Callen from NCIS: LA about saving France.

And the queen is Fiona from Burn Notice. Kind of expected her to shoot someone.

Moving past that though, the thing that bugged me most about this film was its take on Cardinal Richelieu. And maybe this is a personal thing and everyone can move past that. I know that The Three Musketeers has Richelieu as the iconic villain, but this movie makes him…hammy. And stupid. And over-the-top evil. And I get it, you don’t hire Tim Curry to do subtle, but at the same time, that’s not Richelieu’s Thing.

The whole point of Cardinal Richelieu as an antagonist is that he’s a ruthless bastard controlling the country behind the scenes, but everything he does is for France. He’s not evil for the sake of it. I suppose you could make him more of an overt, cackling villain, but the idea that he wants to take the throne for himself? At that point, I think you’ve stopped writing Richelieu and started writing a different villain, because Richelieu at his core is the kind of man who wouldn’t want to publicly sit on the throne. Why would he do that when he can be much more efficient as a puppet master from the shadows? Again, it’s Tim Curry, he’s still fun to watch, but he’s pretty far from the mark of who Cardinal Richelieu is supposed to be.

[The 2011 movie with airships was closer to the mark on his character than that. Actually the 2011 movie with airships follows the basic plot of the novel surprisingly well? Considering there are airships.]

Because of the dumbing down of Richelieu, the Plot is also significantly simpler. Obviously all the complexities of the novel won’t make it into the movie, and the book’s story relies on a lot of court intrigue and international politics, so I don’t mind too much that they simplified things, only that the way they feels a bit too over-the-top. It’s also frustrating because we know that  D’Artagnan overhears most of the Cardinal’s plan, only for him to only apparently remember pieces of it when he needs to tell the others, and gets surprised when he learns the full extent of it.

Also Constance is in this movie. I don’t know why. To give D’Artagnan a love interest? She’s barely there. She has a scene towards the end in which she does something, but it’s so minimal and could have been done by anyone that I don’t think it justifies her being in the film.

And there’s a brief fight scene in a tavern with Athos, Porthos, and Aramis against Rochefort and his guards right before the “duel” with D’Artagnan and I don’t know why it’s there. It’s a pointless scene.

…it really sounds like I hated this movie, didn’t I? I don’t. I just found it to be a forgettable movie, and one that doesn’t reflect the source material very well. Having seen the 2011 film and the BBC series, which has more style and memorable characters, this film didn’t feel very memorable or interesting in comparison. And in some ways, a forgettable movie is worse than a bad one, I think? Not actually worse, because not much in this movie made me angry, but outside of fight scenes it wasn’t that interesting either.

Okay, things I liked:

-Sword fight scenes are mostly good. Not incredibly stylish, but it looks like they actually care about the fencing of the period (although many times it looks like the musketeers forgot they have guns; funny, considering the name). I said that outside of fight scenes the movie wasn’t that interesting–thankfully there are quite a few fight scenes, and I appreciate that.

-Sets are really cool. I don’t think they’re historically accurate at all, but I don’t know if any Three Musketeers movie has that distinction. I thought most of the scenes happened in very pretty-looking environments.

-Okay he’s terrible as Richelieu but Tim Curry is still delightful to watch because of how hammy he is. He chews the scenery wherever he walks and that’s fantastic on its own.

-Hostility with England! France and England famously have had a rivalry through a lot of history, and I don’t know where they actually stand historically at this point. But here they’re on the cusp of war. Something that bugged me about the BBC Musketeers series is that it barely mentions England and the rivalry there in many adaptations is instead shifted to Spain. And yes, Spain did at this time have conflict with France, but I suspect it was because it was a British production. Here, upcoming war with Britain is the looming threat driving the Plot.

-The tone overall. Sure, it’s not something new that a Three Musketeers adaptation is a fun swashbuckling adventure, but that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate it. There are occasional adaptations that try to make it gritty and dark story and I like it better the 

So yes, I did like some things about this movie. But overall, while I didn’t dislike it, I also didn’t find it that amazing either. I had fun watching it, and I had fun making this review. But it’s far from the best adaptation of the story, and it’s far from the most fun. And I had a lot of issues because I have strong opinions on Richelieu, though I don’t know that most viewers will have that hangup. Still, while you may have some fun, if you really want a good film version of The Three Musketeers you should probably look elsewhere.

[lucyreviewcy]

The Three Three Musketeers (or Where The F*ck Did All The Stupid Hats Go)

I read The Three Musketeers and then I watched the 1973, 1993 and 2011 adaptations. Which one wins tho?

Adaptation is a fascinating concept, especially of texts which are frequently adapted or parodied. After I rewatched the 2005 Pride and Prejudice I was reminded how weirdly divisive the two dominant adaptations of that book are. A lot of people consider the 2005 to be an inferior betrayal of the 1990s BBC version. I actually prefer the 2005 because I think Matthew McFadyen’s Mr Darcy is a wonderfully complex character. McFadyen imbues Darcy with social awkwardness and anxiety, which Lizzie misinterprets as his pride. To overcome the “Lizzie doesn’t fancy him ‘til she sees his house” debate, director Joe Wright includes a moment where Lizzie glimpses Darcy alone with his sister. He’s comfortable, his body language is completely different, and he’s smiling broadly. That moment really sold me on the entire film because it made Darcy a full character and was a really simple addition that rounded out the story. I still like the 90s version but for me, it’s the 2005 that takes first place.  (Although an honourable mention for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies because it is an excellent romp.)

Look: adaptation is always a complicated topic. You can’t untangle one adaptation from another, because it’s pretty rare that somebody adapting a classic text like Pride and Prejudice or The Three Musketeers is not already familiar with existing adaptations. The most recent adaptation of any classic text is not simply an adaptation of that text, but the next step in a flow chart that includes all the previous adaptations and the cultural context of the newly created product. These three adaptations of Dumas’ 1844 novel are all texturally and stylistically very different, and two of them diverge significantly from the original text. What I found truly fascinating was what all of them had in common, and what each new era (these were made at around 20 year intervals) decides to add or remove. What do all these movies agree are the essential parts of the story, and what are some adaptations more squeamish about including from Dumas’ original narrative?

Before we dive in, no I have not seen every single adaptation of the story, that would be a dissertation level of research and I do actually have things to do right now (although, I will admit...not many.) I’m looking at these three Hollywood adaptations because they all had star studded casts (for the era they were made in), they’re all English language, and (crucially) they were all easily available on the internet for me to stream.

What are the essential ingredients of a Three Musketeers adaptation?

Firstly, there should be at least three musketeers. Secondly, D’Artagnan (Michael York 1973, Chris O’Donnell 1993, Logan Lerman 2011) should be a young upstart who is introduced part way through a sword fight. He should also have silly hair. He is also consistently introduced to the musketeers in all three films by challenging them each individually to duels at noon, one o’clock and two o’clock. 

The films all maintained some elements of the original “Queen’s Diamonds” storyline, and featured the Queen, Milady and Constance. The characterisation of these three varied a lot.

Our villains in each case are invariably the Cardinal, his pal Rochefort (who always has an eyepatch, although this trope is not in the book and is actually attributable to the way Christopher Lee is styled in the 1973 film), and Milady de Winter. Satisfyingly, at least two of the villains usually wear red because they’re bad. Red is for bad. 

All three are very swashbuckling in tone, have elements of physical comedy, and two of them include one of the three valet characters Dumas wrote into the original story, Planchet (1973 Roy Kinnear, 2011 James “ugh why” Corden). They also all bear the generic markings of the movies made during the same era, our 70s D’Artagnan feels like a prototype Luke Skywalker. The 90s version features a random martial arts performer. The 2011 version has CGI and James Corden in equal measure (read: far too much of both.)

What are the big differences?

I’m going to divide this category into three main segments: character, story and style. My own three musketeers, the three musketeers of movie making.

Character

D’Artagnan

D’artagnan in the book comes across as a pretty comical figure. He’s nineteen and there’s something satisfying about how similar Dumas’ caricature of a nineteen year old is to a modern character of the same age. He’s overconfident, has a simplistic but concrete set of morals, and falls in love with every woman he sees. If D’Artagnan were a 2021 character, he’d really hate The Last Jedi, is what I’m saying. He’d definitely have a tumblr blog, probably a lot like this one, but perhaps a scooch more earnest. He really loved The Lighthouse but he can’t explain why. Isn’t it nice to know that awkward nineteen year olds have been pretty much the same for the last three hundred years at least? 

In all three films he’s kind of irritating, but at least in the 1973 this feels deliberate. This version has a certain “Carry On Musketeering” quality to it and D’Artagnan is your pantomime principal, he’s extremely naïve and he takes himself very seriously. This is the closest D’Artagnan to the book, and the 1973 is, in general, the film which adheres most faithfully to that source material. 

The 1993, which is (spoiler alert) my least favourite adaptation, has Chris O’Donnell as the least likeable D’Artagnan I’ve come across. I’ve only seen O’Donnell in one other thing, the Al Pacino movie Scent of a Woman. He’s bearable in that because he’s opposite Al Pacino, and so his wide-eyed innocence makes sense as a contrast to Pacino’s aged hoo-ah cynicism. Rather than being introduced in a practice sword fight with his father, as in the other two films, D’Artagnan is fighting the brother of an ex-lover. This captures the problem with the film in general: this adaptation wants D’Artagnan to be cool. He is not. The comedy of the 1973, and indeed the book, comes from D’Artagnan being deeply uncool, and from his blind idolisation of the deeply flawed Musketeers who actually are cool, but not necessarily heroic, or even good people. Their moral greyness contrasts with D’Artagnan’s defined sense of right and wrong, but he still considers them to be role models and heroes. 

2011′s version also suffers from “Cool D’Artagnan” syndrome, with the added annoyance of that most Marvel of tropes: the quip. One of the real issues with this film is that the dialogue has a lot of forced quippery that doesn’t quite land, and the editing slows the pace of the entire film. D’Artagnan’s first interaction with Constance is a bad attempt at wit which Constance points out isn’t very funny. The problem is that Constance has no personality so there’s no real indication that she’s in any position to judge his level of wit. She’s just vague, blonde and there: three characteristics which describe an entire pantheon of badly written female characters throughout the ages. Cool D’Artagnan also means that Constance should be additionally cool, because in the book, Constance is older than, smarter than and over-all more in charge than D’Artagnan. 

Female Characters

Let’s go into this with an open mind that understands all these films were made in the sociological context of their decade. The 1973 version would absolutely not be made in the same way now. Constance is a clumsy cartoon character who is forever falling over and accidentally sticking her breasts out. This is not the character from the books, but does at least leave an impression on the viewer one way or another. 

In contrast, the 1993 has a Constance so forgettable I literally cannot picture her. I think she holds D’Artagnan’s hand at the end. That’s all I can say on the subject. 

The 2011 has Gabriella Wilde in the role, and absolutely wastes her. Anyone who’s seen her in  Poldark knows that she can do sharp-tongued beautiful wit-princess with ease. It’s the writing of this film that lets her down, in general, that’s the problem with it. The storyline and design are great, but the actual dialogue lacks the pace and bite that a quip-ridden star vehicle needs. This Constance is given simultaneously more and less to do than the Constance of the original book, who demonstrates at every turn the superiority of her intellect over D’Artagnan, but doesn’t get to pretend to be a Musketeer and whip her hat off to show her flowing golden hair like she does in the 2011. 

The best character, for my money, in The Three Musketeers is Milady de Winter. Even Dumas got so obsessed with her that there are full chapters of the book written from pretty much her perspective. In the book, she’s described as a terrifying genius with powers of persuasion so potent that any jailor she speaks to must be instantly replaced. My favourite Milady is absolutely Faye Dunaway from 1973. She’s ferocious and beautiful and ruthless, but potentially looks even better because the portrayals in the other films are so very bad. 

The 1993 version has your typical blonde 90s baddie woman (Rebecca De Mornay), she wouldn’t look out of place as a scary girlfriend in an episode of Friends or Frasier. 2011 boasts Milla Jovovich who presents us a much more physical version of the character, even doing an awkwardly shoe-horned anachronistic hall of lasers a la Entrapment except instead of lasers its really thin pieces of glass? The “yeah but it looks cool” attitude to anachronism in this film is what makes it fun, and Jovovich’s Milady isn’t awful, she’s just let down by a plot point that she shares with 1993 Milady. Both these adaptations get really hooked on the fact that Athos used to be married to Milady at one time (conveniently leaving out the less justifiable character point that Athos TRIED TO HANG HER when he found out she had been branded as a thief - doesn’t wash so well with the modern audiences, I think.) Rather than hating/fearing Milady, the two modern adaptations suggest that Athos is still in love with her and pines for her. This detracts from Athos’ character just as much as it detracts from Milady’s. Interestingly, and I don’t know where this came from (if it was in the book I definitely missed it), both films feature a confrontation between the two where Athos points a gun at Milady but she pre-empts him by throwing herself off a cliff (or in the 2011, an air-ship.) I think both these versions were concerned that Milady was an anti-feminist character because she’s so wantonly evil, but I disagree. Equality means it is absolutely possible for Milady to be thoroughly evil and hated by the musketeers just as much as they hate Rochefort and the Cardinal. If you want to sort out the gender issues with this story, round Constance out and give her proper dialogue, don’t make Milady go weak at the knees because of whiny Athos (both Athos characters are exceedingly whiny, 1973 Athos is just...mashed).

The Musketeers

These guys are pretty important to get right in a film called The Three Musketeers. They have to be flawed, funny but kind of cool. Richard Chamberlain is an absolute dish in the 1973 version, capturing all those qualities in one. Is it clear which version is my favourite yet?

Athos is played variously by a totally hammered Oliver Reed (1973), a ginger-bearded Kiefer Sutherland (1993) and a badly bewigged Matthew McFadyen (2011). They all have in common the role of being the most level-headed character, but the focus on the relationship between Athos and Milady in the 93 and 11 editions undermines this a lot. Athos should be cool and aloof, instead of mooning over Milady the entire time. The 2011 gives Athos some painfully “edgy” lines like “I believe in this (points at wine) this (flicks coin) and this (stabs coin with knife.)...” which McFadyen ( once oh so perfect as Mr Darcy) doesn’t quite pull off. 

Porthos seems to be the musketeer who is the most different between interpretations. A foppish dandy in the 1973, a pirate (!?!) in the 1993, and then just...large in 2011. I think the mistake made in the 2011 is that large alone does not a personality make. There are hints at Porthos’ characterisation from the book: his dependence on rich women for money and his love of fine clothing, but these are only included as part of his introduction and never crop up again through the rest of the film. Pirate Porthos in 1993 is... you know what, fine, you guys were clearly throwing everything at the wall and seeing what stuck. 

Aramis is our dishy Richard Chamberlain in 1973, followed by womanising Charlie Sheen in 1993 and then strikingly suave Luke Evans in 2011. I actually didn’t mind Luke Evans’ interpretation, his dialogue is forgettable but his sleek charm stuck in my head. For some reason, this version has Aramis working as a parking attendant for horses, it worked for me as a fun A Knight’s Tale-esque bit of anachronistic character development. Charlie Sheen has never managed to appear likable or attractive to me and so his role in the 1993 falls flat. In fact, in that edition there’s not much distinction between the musketeers as characters and they’re all just very 90s and American. As anyone who’s read this blog before will expect, I think Keanu Reeves as Aramis would have really upped this film’s game. In fact, Keanu Reeves as Aramis, Brad Pitt as Athos and Will Smith as Porthos could have been the ultimate 90s adaptation, throw in DiCaprio as D’Artagnan and Roger Allam as the Cardinal and I’m fully sold. 

The King and Queen

All three films try and do the “Queen’s Diamonds” storyline, but only the 1973 actually includes the Queen’s affair with Buckingham. The queen, played by Geraldine Chaplin, is a tragic romantic figure (she doesn’t have a tonne to do besides being wistful and sighing over Lord Buckingham). The king is played as a frivolous idiot by Jean-Pierre Cassel (voice dubbed by Richard Briers). He doesn’t really think of the queen as a person, more as a possession that he doesn’t want Buckingham to have. 

In the 1993 version, Buckingham doesn’t really feature, and it’s the queen’s refusal to get off with the Cardinal that prompts his fury at her. The book does touch on the Cardinal’s desire for the queen, but it’s placed front and centre in 1993. This is definitely the boobsiest version, with quite a lot of corsetry on show and a cardinal who hits on literally all the women. The king is shown as a stroppy teenage boy under the thumb of the cardinal, who just wants to ask the queen to the dance but doesn’t have the nerve. The king is, essentially, a Fall Out Boy lyric. 

The 2011 also seems to be really squeamish about the idea of the queen having an extramarital affair. It paints Buckingham (played with excellent wig and aplomb by Orlando Bloom) as a stylish villain, who’s advances the queen has rejected. Like the 1993 version, the King is a feckless youth rendered speechless by the presence of his wife. Both these versions want the King and Queen to be happy together, while the 1973 doesn’t give a fuck. 

The Cardinal and his Cronies

The cardinal is kind of universally an evil creepy guy. One of the characters from the 1973 version who actually left the least impression on me, played by Charlton Heston. I think he’s overshadowed in my recollection by cartoonishly evil Christopher Lee as Rochefort. Lee’s Rochefort is dark, mysterious and wonderfully bad, and so influential that all other incarnations’ design is based on him. The 1993 version had truly over the top Michael Wincott as a character I could honestly refer to as Darth Rochefort from the way he’s framed, while 2011 boasts a chronically underused Mads Mikkelsen in the role. 

Cardinal-wise, 1993 was my favourite with Tim Curry in all his ecclesiastical splendour. It was disappointing that everything about this film, including the Cardinal’s sexual harassment of every single female character, really didn’t work for me. Tim Curry is a natural choice for this role and gives it his campy all. 

2011 has not one but two trendy bond villain actors, with Mikkelsen working alongside Christoph Waltz who was...just kind of fine. I was really excited when he appeared but he didn’t really push the character far enough and left me cold. 

Story

The story is where the different adaptations diverge most completely. 1973 follows the plot of the novel, D’Artagnan comes to Paris, befriends the Musketeers and becomes embroiled in a plot by the Cardinal to expose the Queen’s affair with Buckingham through the theft of two diamond studs. D’Artagnan, aided partially by the musketeers, must travel to London to retrieve the set of twelve studs gifted by the King to the Queen, and by the Queen to Buckingham. He does so, the plot is foiled, he’s made into a musketeer! Hurrah, tankards all round.

The 1993 version drops D’Artagnan into the story just as the Cardinal has disbanded the Musketeers. I found the plot of this one really hard to follow and I think at some point D’Artagnan ended up in the Bastille? There was this whole plot point about how Rochefort had killed D’Artagnan’s father. In the original, and in the 1973 version, D’Artagnan’s entire beef with Rochefort is rooted in a joke Rochefort makes about D’Artagnan’s horse. I guess for the producers of this one, a horse insult is not enough motivation for a lifelong grudge. That is really the problem with the entire film, it forgets that the story as told by Dumas is set in a world where men duel over such petty things as “criticising one’s horse”, “blocking one’s journey down a staircase” and “accusing one of having dropped a lady’s handkerchief.” The colour palette and styling are very 90s “fun fun fun”, but the portrayal of the cardinal and the endless angst about D’Artagnan’s father really dampen the mood. 

The 2011 version, this is where the shit really hits the fan. We meet our musketeers as they collaborate with Milady to steal the blueprints for a flying ship (it’s like a piratecore zeppelin). Milady betrays them and gives the plans to Buckingham, they all become jaded and unemployed. D’Artagnan arrives on the scene (his American accent explained by the fact that he’s from a different part of France) and befriends the Musketeers. The cardinal tries to frame the queen for infidelity by having Milady steal her diamonds to hide them in Buckingham’s safe at the tower of London. Something something Constance, something something help me D’Artagnan you’re my only hope. MASSIVE AIRSHIP BATTLE. The king and queen have a dance. James Corden cracks wise. 

It seems like as time has passed, producers, writers and directors have felt compelled to embellish the story. I think, specifically in the case of the two later versions, this is because they wanted the films to resemble the big successes of the period. Everybody knows no Disney hero can be in possession of both parents, so D’Artagnan is out to avenge his father like Simba or Luke Skywalker. In the 2011 version, the plot is overblown and overcomplicated in what seems like an attempt to replicate the success of both the Sherlock Holmes and Pirates of the Caribbean franchises. Remember the plot of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End? No, me neither. 

Style

The style of these films grows increasingly wild along with the plots as time passes. The 1973 features a lot of slapstick comedy, some of which really made me cackle, and some of which was cringeworthily sexist (Constance’s boobs through the window of a litter.) That’s the 70s though! I love The Godfather but Diane Keaton’s character is unbelivably dull and annoying. Star Wars features a pretty good female character but she does end up in that bikini. The 70s seems to be a time of movies that were great except for their occasional headlong dive into misogyny. That doesn’t mean the entire movie is bad, it just means it’s suffering from the consequences of being made in the 70s. There were other consequences of this, I doubt many modern productions could get away with physically injuring so many of it’s cast members. From a glance down the IMDB trivia page, this film yielded a higher casualties to cast ratio than the My Chemical Romance Famous Last Words music video, and that’s a hard figure to top. 

The 1993 version is a Disney feature and suffers from having a thin sheen (not Charlie in this instance) of “Disney Original Movie” pasted over every scene. It looks like The Parent Trap might be filming in the adjacent studio a lot of the time. The vibrancy of the colours makes the costumes look unrealistic, while the blandness of the female characters means this movie ends up a bit of a bland bro-fest. Also occasionally the sexual and violent moments really jar with the overall tone making it an uneven watch. One minute it’s Charlie Sheen cracking jokes about trying to get off with someone’s wife, the next minute you see Milady throw herself off a cliff and land on the rocks. Weird choices all round. 

The 2011 version, as I’ve already mentioned, was trying to borrow its style from the success of Sherlock Holmes and Pirates of the Caribbean, with a little Ocean’s 11 thrown in. The soundtrack flips between not quite a Hans Zimmer score and not quite that other Hans Zimmer score, and after the success of Stardust it ends with a Take That song (for it to match up to the story it should have been Take That feat. Harry styles imho). Visually, there’s some fantastic travel by mapping going on, there’s far too much CGI (one of my friends pointed out that the canal in Venice seemed to be full of Flubber). Everyone is dressed in black leather, and there are not enough big hats at all. One of the best things about Musketeers films is that they’re an excuse for ridiculous hats, and in a film with a quite frankly insane visual style, I’m surprised the hats didn’t make it through. The cast, unfortunately, really lack chemistry which means the humorous dialogue is either stilted or James Corden, and the editing is just very strange. It’s one of those films that feels about as disjointed as an early morning dream, the one where you dream you’ve woken up, gotten dressed and fed the cat, but you actually are still in bed. 

Conclusion

Adaptations focus on different things depending on the context they were created in. The 2005 Pride and Prejudice is deliberately “grittier” than its 1990s predecessor, at a stage when “grit” was everywhere (The Bourne Identity, Spooks, Constantine). The Musketeers adaptations demonstrate exactly the same thing: what people wanted in the 70s was bawdy comedy and slapstick with a likeable idiot hero, the 90s clearly called for... Charlie Sheen and bright colours, and the 2010s just want too much of everything and a soundtrack with lots of banging and crashing. The more modern adaptations simplified the female characters (although the 1973 version definitely is guilty of oversimplifying Constance) while over-complicating the plot. There’s a lot of embellishment going on in the 2011 version that suggests the film wasn’t very sure of itself, it pulls its plot punches while simultaneously blindly flailing its stylistic fists. 

The film that works the best for me will always be the 1973 because it’s pretty straight down the line. Musketeers are good, Milady is evil, falling over is funny and the King’s an idiot. The later adaptations seem to be trying to fix problems with the story that the 1973 version just lets fly. The overcorrection of Milady and the under characterisation of Constance is the perfect example of this. If you want your Musketeers adaptation to be more feminist, don’t weaken Milady, strengthen Constance. Sometimes a competent female character is all that we need. A Constance who is like Florence Cassel from Death in Paradise or  Ahn Young-yi from Misaeng could really pack a punch.

I adored the energy of the 2011 adaptation, I loved how madcap it was, I loved how it threw historical accuracy to the wind. I thought the king was adorable, and I really enjoyed seeing Orlando Bloom hamming it up as Buckingham. I was genuinely sad that the sequel the ending sets up for never came, because once they got out of the sticky dialogue and into the explosions, the film was great fun. It was a beautiful disaster that never quite came together, but I really enjoyed watching it. I love films that have a sense of wild chaos, some more successful examples are The Devil’s Advocate, Blow Dry and Lego Batman. I think the spirit of going all out on everything can sometimes result in the best cinematic experience, it’s just a shame the script wasn’t really up to muster for 2011 Musketeers. 

I’m excited to see what the next big budget Musketeers adaptation brings, even if I’m going to have to wait another ten years to see it. I hope it’s directed by Chad Stahelski, that’d really float my boat (through the sky, like a zeppelin.)

[lostonrevenge]

In a dungeon somewhere, Harry cuffed to the walls.

Harry, pretending to be drunk and singing: There once was an aunt from Lorraine with an incredible tolerance for pain. She had a nasty habit involving a chicken, a frog, and a rabbit.

Captor: I expected more from a man of your reputation. I don’t suppose you have any idea where I could find Uma and Gil?

Harry, shaking his head: Never heard of them

Captor: You pirates. You’re very arrogant. And foolish. And you’re so…

Harry, smiling: Sexy?

Captor: It’s a wonder it took me so long to catch you.

Harry: You didn’t!

Captor: I beg your pardon?

Harry, dropping the drunk façade: You didn’t… catch me.

Captor: And what exactly are you doing here?

Harry: Catching you. *Proceeds to attack and debilitate everyone in the room*

Source: The Three Musketeers (2011)

[retvenkos]

“nerds travel in packs”

BEING A BFF TO OUR BOYS, PETER PARKER AND NED LEEDS, HAS TO BE SOMETHING LIKE THIS...

so you, ned, and peter are close - like the three musketeers

ned was the one to claim this, but you objected because the three of you were way too nerdy and dorky to be them

so, naturally, peter googled iconic trios to find a compromise between the three of you

that didn’t happen

ned claims you are luke skywalker, leia organa, and han solo

him being han, ofc

but you and peter objected

peter says you are harry potter, hermione granger, and ron weasley

he’d be the hermione of the group

but ned refused to be ron

even after you insisted that ron was more than comic relief, ned refused

he said it was because he could never be a ginger

so you jokingly said that your crew was obviously the alvin and the chipmunks

peter objected, and you said that he was simon by nature

and sadly, it stuck

and that was just the start of the obnoxious alvin and the chipmunk jokes

peter claimed to hate it more than anything, but one christmas he gave you a dvd of alvin and the chipmunks: chipwrecked

you forced he and ned to watch it with you, joking that it deserved the 2011 oscar for best-animated feature

rango who?

watching it was one of the worst experiences of your life, but it was fine because it was with your besties

and you know that the three of you have crazy inside jokes

do any of your conversations make sense to other people?

definitely not

which makes it quite easy for you to tease peter about his crush on mj without making it obvious

unlike ned, who had  z e r o  filter

“it’s part of my charm, (y/n)!”

and speaking of mj, you know you get to befriend her too

and she will forever say that the three of you are the worst, but when the “iconic trio” argument comes up, she claims that it has to be star wars because she is obviously lando calrissian

and that makes ned’s whole world

“but that means peter has to be luke. (y/n) is obviously a leia.”

and we all know that peter has seen star wars just to humor ned and doesn’t really understand what is happening

but now that he knows mj likes it? he forces you and ned to have a marathon with him

and being friends with peter is great

because he’s actually really funny when he wants to be

he mumbles under his breath a lot because our boy is RESPECTFUL and doesn’t want to be rude, but it’s actually really great running commentary

especially when it comes to teachers.

our boy can rip them a new one

and another perk of being peters friend is that he is  c r a z y  smart

do you have homework struggles? ask him! he wants to help! and pls tell him ‘thank you,’ this boy needs validation

you jokingly say that he should make youtube videos on different math and physics concepts, and he actually does it

it’s now his main source of income, now

and you almost die when you see your teacher use one of his videos for a lecture

“you’re famous, pete!”

oh, and you know that you were with ned when he finds out that peter is spider-man

and then you buy any and all spider-man merchandise

peter’s eyes are so wide when he first sees your spider-man backpack

it’s also become a way to give him a gag gift

you and ned definitely bought him a spider-man toothbrush

and he secretly uses it

but also being peter’s friend means that you have to cover for him when he is doing spider-man stuff

you frequently “faint” from “chronic iron deficiency” whenever peter needs a distraction

you also try to fall on flash if you can, because revenge is fun when it’s “not your fault”

you and ned have also made many elaborate lies about peter to cover his superhero status

one time, peter came to school with bruises and black eyes and instead of coming up with a normal excuse, ned blurted out the first thing he could think of:

“he has scurvy!”

ned looked to you and you nodded, horrified “vitamin c deficiencies, y’know?”

peter made it a point to drink only orange juice for a week to punish you and ned

but mostly, he loves you guys

movie night is saturday, and it’s at ned’s house

the three of you see a lot of movies, especially older ones

it’s come to the place where all of you can have conversations in almost entirely movie quotes.

and the three of you are inseparable. it’s cute

AND FLUFF ENSUES.