The Three Musketeers (1973, 1993 and now 2011 editions)

[K9]

Something I was reminded of as a consequence of Charlie Sheen's public episode is that he starred in the somewhat unlovable 1993 version of the Three Musketeers alongside Kiefer Sutherland. This in turn reminded me of the rather more lovable and decidedly better 1973 version of The Three Musketeers, which in turn led me to note that Disney in keeping with some ~18-20 year film making cycle, are making a 2011 version of the same film, now in 3D

It seems that each incarnation of the films has at least one inspired casting; Oliver Stone as Athos, Tim Curry as Richlieu, and in 2011, I suspect Mads Mikkelsen as Rochefort is a pretty great cast. In all other regards I anticipate that the film will be pretty dire, designed to sell toys rather than a great story. It's not the easiest story to film, given the length of the book, but I did enjoy the 1973 version greatly, and it shows that it can be done. I just suspect that given the current trends in hollywood, the makers of the film will be thinking more about week one sales and tie-ins than anything else.

TL:DR Go watch the 1973 version of The Three Musketeers

[stu]

haha I can totally see Oliver Stone in a Three Musketeers movie.  

edit: What did you think of The Musketeer from 2001? It has Tim Roth & Stephen Rea, and was good in theaters. I remember being kinda shocked when the musketeer starting doing Asian-style martial arts. I haven't seen the others.

[Ingmar]

Keep in mind when you're going back to watch the 1973 movie that it was actually cut into 2 pieces by the studio (this caused some issues as the cast was paid like it was one movie, etc). The "sequel" is "The Four Musketeers" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073012/), so to get the whole thing you should watch both.

[K9]

True, although the first move stands in its own well enough. The second movie is somewhat darker than the first; I remember enjoying it a lot less than the first gilm when I first saw it as a child.

I'd also throw in a nod for The Man in the Iron Mask, which was another more sombre take on some of Dumas' work, with an absolutely exceptional cast. It's not a film for the ages, but it is an easy way to while away an otherwise dreary afternoon or evening.

haha I can totally see Oliver Stone in a Three Musketeers movie.  

edit: What did you think of The Musketeer from 2001? It has Tim Roth & Stephen Rea, and was good in theaters. I remember being kinda shocked when the musketeer starting doing Asian-style martial arts. I haven't seen the others.

I haven't actually seen it; and yes, Oliver Stone is brilliant as Athos.

[Ingmar]

I can't tell how far we are into the green at this point, but it is of course Oliver Reed.

Fair warning, also, Raquel Welch is rather badly miscast in these movies, but she's really the only one.

On the 2001 movie, it is not great. Even the action scenes are held back by absolutely terrible lighting.

[UnSub]

Tim Roth gets the best lines in the martial arts one.

It's not a great film, but is fine if you want a movie that isn't at all mentally taxing. Or want something to laugh at due to its badness.

[HaemishM]

I actually like the Sheen/Sutherland movie. I mean, it was essentially Young Muskets but I enjoyed it well enough. The Man in the Iron Mask was better, and of course the original 1973 version was the best. I don't expect much from a 3D modern version.

EDIT: Ok, now that I see the cast for the new one, I don't feel so dire. Yes, Paul Anderson is directing it, but he occasionally has moments of adequacy (Event Horizon and Mortal Kombat), I really like Ray Stevenson as Porthos, Christoph Waltz as Richlieu and Matthew Macfayden as Athos. Not too many screenwriters so it probably has only had a little bit of studio interference.

[K9]

I can't tell how far we are into the green at this point, but it is of course Oliver Reed.

Oops, total brain fart there.

Mortal Kombat

 

[HaemishM]

Hey, the first Mortal Kombat was a decent brainless action flick. The second was an abomination unto God.

[Ingmar]

Hey, the first Mortal Kombat was a decent brainless action flick. The second was an abomination unto God.

No, see, now every time I see you post I'm going to think to myself "that sounds like a good point, but then again this guy liked Mortal Kombat..."

[HaemishM]

How could you not like the first Mortal Kombat? It was no worse than any number of schlock kung-fu movies ever made.

[Ingmar]

I will give it a few points for the soundtrack, at least. A lot like the 2001 Musketeer actually, it suffers from horribly dark lighting in what should be the best part of the movie (the fight scenes) and adds some incredibly bad/goofy camera work on top of it.

[WindupAtheist]

This is the part where you fall down.

I'm with Haemish, Mortal Kombat 1 was fun, and no dumber than it should have been. Which is pretty dumb.

[Merusk]

MC was perfect for what it was. A Kung-Fu movie based on a rather uninspired fighter whose notoriety was its gore.   It, like the game, was stupid fun that didn't take itself too seriously.   The worst part of the whole movie was the woman who played Sonya being unable to fight worth a damn.

Course, I also didn't think the '93 version of Musketeers was as bad as some think it was, either.  It wasn't great but it wasn't MST3k material either.

[Bunk]

Put me on the list of liking the first Mortal Kombat. The soundtrack was a big part of it, but it worked for what it was. And it had the awesomeness that is Christopher Lambert  .

Mind you, I'll also admit to enjoying Dead or Alive and Street Fighter (JCVD / Raul Julia version).

Pretty much any other fighting game to movie adaptation I can think of has been total crap. The ones that worked were smart to keep tounge planted firmly in cheek.

[Khaldun]

The 1973 version is one of my absolutely favorite films. Though the second half, The Four Musketeers, is indeed darker.

Three especially loveable things about the first one:

1) The just freaking amazingly well done costuming, period materials, and so on. This is about as close as you're going to get to actually seeing early modern Europe, minus some shit, blood, plague and ugliness.
2) The extremely atypical fight choreography: sword-fighting, yes, but tons of brawling, fighting dirty, people actually getting tired from waving a pointy piece of metal around.
3) The scene where the Musketeers stage a fight in an inn so they can steal enough food and booze to have a feast. Just...wow. Such a genius scene.

Two less loveable things:

1) Some occasionally bad pacing.
2) Some weak slapstick that very much recurs in some of Richard Lester's other films (think some of the bad little comedic bits in Superman II amid all its goodness).

[Sheepherder]

2) The extremely atypical fight choreography: sword-fighting, yes, but tons of brawling, fighting dirty, people actually getting tired from waving a pointy piece of metal around.
3) The scene where the Musketeers stage a fight in an inn so they can steal enough food and booze to have a feast. Just...wow. Such a genius scene.

This is more or less authentic.  The Musketeers of the Guard were pretty notorious for being right bastards with a penchant for thinning the ranks of the French nobility.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Christopher waltz deserves better than becoming the next tim curry, in this movie and beyond.

[Khaldun]

2) The extremely atypical fight choreography: sword-fighting, yes, but tons of brawling, fighting dirty, people actually getting tired from waving a pointy piece of metal around.
3) The scene where the Musketeers stage a fight in an inn so they can steal enough food and booze to have a feast. Just...wow. Such a genius scene.

This is more or less authentic.  The Musketeers of the Guard were pretty notorious for being right bastards with a penchant for thinning the ranks of the French nobility.

Right, I know. It goes along with the costuming and set design. Though I think it's also a lot of what early modern fighting was in general. Nobody ever swashed buckles like Errol Flynn in real life.

[Ingmar]

2) Some weak slapstick that very much recurs in some of Richard Lester's other films (think some of the bad little comedic bits in Superman II amid all its goodness).

Yeah, sadly this is compounded by giving a bunch of it to Raquel Welch as I recall, who was already kind of terrible in the movie anyway.

[proudft]

2) The extremely atypical fight choreography: sword-fighting, yes, but tons of brawling, fighting dirty, people actually getting tired from waving a pointy piece of metal around.

Haven't seen these, I assumed 'historical movie from 70s = terrible', but that description reminds me of the swordfight at the end of Rob Roy (spoilers, duh): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27M5KWI_q50

Is it at least 50% that awesome?  If so, I may have to queue one or both of em up.

[pxib]

Error or no, now I really want to see Oliver Stone get more acting roles.

[Sheepherder]

Right, I know. It goes along with the costuming and set design. Though I think it's also a lot of what early modern fighting was in general. Nobody ever swashed buckles like Errol Flynn in real life.

There's a reason that European swords don't have a reputation for sharpness.

The one guy is obviously using his pommel as a mace, because they're heavy enough to do pretty significant damage.  The other is halfswording, which involves gripping a blunt section fore of the guard and wielding the sword like a spear, sacrificing leverage in swings for precision stabbing.

[Riggswolfe]

edit: What did you think of The Musketeer from 2001? It has Tim Roth & Stephen Rea, and was good in theaters. I remember being kinda shocked when the musketeer starting doing Asian-style martial arts. I haven't seen the others.

It was a piece of shit movie that was an affront to the Musketeer legend. It also broke me of my habit of seeing almost anything with Tim Roth in it and made me wonder if the producers had his family hostage. Seriously, the only reason I didn't walk out was because I didn't drive and would've had to wait anyway...

[Khaldun]

2) The extremely atypical fight choreography: sword-fighting, yes, but tons of brawling, fighting dirty, people actually getting tired from waving a pointy piece of metal around.

Haven't seen these, I assumed 'historical movie from 70s = terrible', but that description reminds me of the swordfight at the end of Rob Roy (spoilers, duh): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27M5KWI_q50

Is it at least 50% that awesome?  If so, I may have to queue one or both of em up.

The best scenes in the first film are easily that awesome: look for the initial duel between the Musketeers and the Cardinal's Guard (after D'Artagnan has scheduled a duel with each of them), the aforementioned fight and food-theft scene in the inn, D'artagnan's duel in the dark with Rochefort (cleverly staged). Less awesome but still pretty good: the fight in the laundry, Oliver Reed's fight at the well with one of the Cardinal's assassin, and the battle outside of the Queen's room (the fireworks are nice).

In The Four Musketeers, there's an extremely clever fight on an iced-over river and a battle in a burning church. Also I rather like the messy war scene at the beginning.

[K9]

Right, so there are some trailers out now, and they are.... interesting. They have definitely decided to reimagine the story with quite some liberty.

Trailer 1

Trailer 2

Hopefully these can get away with being daft by also being good fun in an unserious way, much like the mummy. I forsee them having a worryingly high chance of being Clash-of-the-titans-esque though.

The cast is pretty decent at least.

[Megrim]

Oh god, kill me now.

[HaemishM]

The cast is decent but it looks utterly ridiculous. And Paul Anderson does not have a good track record especially if you've seen his last Resident Evil movie.

[Ruvaldt]

I'm not one of those people who get bent out of shape when a film takes liberties with source material.  In fact, I can think of multiple examples in which a film has made improvements over its literary inspiration; The Shining, Trainspotting and Lord of the Rings trilogy, to name three.  Having said that, this movie, judged solely by its trailer, looks like shit.  I'm not even defending Dumas, it just looks bad.  An airship with an automatic gatling cannon?  Was that really necessary?

[Sir T]

oh god, please bring back the hilariously corrupt Hollywood managers of the 70s and 80s that at least knew how to bitchslap the stupid and make some good movies. Its like hollywood has forgotten how to make a decent movie in recent times.

Oh and count me in the camp of liking the first Mortal Combat movie.

[Sand]

I has Legolas in it! It cant be bad! Elves in flying war galleys! 

[UnSub]

corrupt Hollywood managers of the 70s and 80s that at least knew how to bitchslap the stupid and make some good movies

The 70s and 80s had lots of awful films. We've just forgotten them.

[Lakov_Sanite]