The Three Musketeers (2023)
Director: Martin Bourboulon
Starring: Vincent Cassel, Francois Civil, Eva Green

You know the feeling when you’re really excited for something, want it to be great, but it just isn’t? Yeah, it’s going to be that sort of review. Is it the worst adaption of the book I’ve seen? It’s certainly up there, though that doesn’t mean it’s bad per se. There will be minor spoilers, so be warned.

First off, to get it out of the way, I got to the cinema about 20 minutes late, after a truly torturous journey of OVER 2 FUCKING HOURS culminating in me running from Central station to the cinema in a breathless frenzy trying desperately not to run over people in my way. I knew there was trackwork and left with what I thought was plenty of time, but between an epic wait for replacement buses, followed by the extended kick in the knackers of my ‘express’ train crawling at a snail’s pace between Strathfield and Central, it was not a good start. There are reasons I hate buses, and that’s one of them. So, I was already sweaty, thirsty and in a foul mood when I made my way into the cinema discretely trying to find my seat, just as D’Artagnan was making his way into Musketeer headquarters. I’m assuming I missed him leaving home and the initial confrontation with Rochefort at Meung, but I’ve no idea.

I’ll spare the spoiler phobic a rundown on the film, but here are my thoughts. It’s very… brown, both in costume and colour palette. The last time I saw that much brown in one place was a particularly horrifying toilet cubicle at Town Hall station, but I won’t go into detail. What little colour there is, chiefly in the nobility, still seems drab and dark. Even the uniforms of the Musketeers and Cardinal’s Guards seem muted, with the famous Musketeer tabard little more than a dark, I want to say, jacket. I didn’t expect the full blown eye-bleedingly bright version of the 1948 film, but some colour would have been nice. I don’t think the director went full Zack Snyder, but it did seem to evoke the muted colours of the worst parts of the DC Cinematic Murderverse (Alas, I can’t claim that line as my own) to an irritating degree.

The cast do a good job, with a solid sense of who each character is, though my lateness left me with no idea if anyone is supposed to be Rochefort or not, given the one part that was rock solid to the book being no eyepatch. Vincent Cassel makes a fine Athos, all brooding and grumpy, while Francois Civil makes an entertaining D’Artagnan, possibly the least irritating version I’ve seen, even if his flirting with Constance is a bit over the top. The Cardinal barely twirls his moustache, while King Louis is far more serious, a change from, I want to say, every other version I’ve seen. There’s also not nearly enough of Eva Green’s Milady, but I’m assuming she’ll feature more in Part 2. As for the script, there’s some solid jokes and moments of levity amidst the brown and drama, but it’s not as fun as I was hoping for.

FUN FACT: Christopher Lee (From the 1973/4 version) is responsible for the ‘Rochefort wears an eyepatch’ trope, as he was looking for something to make the character more evil, and settled on one. And while there are certainly valid issues around characters with disabilities as villains, I can’t disagree with him, to the extent that to my knowledge every version of the character past up till this film has worn one at one point or another.

Speaking of changes, there’s a large number of them that left me cold. I wasn’t expecting a book accurate adaption, there’s large chunks of the book that wouldn’t work on film (The chapter on how Athos get’s his equipment for starters), or to modern eyes – the characters blasé attitude to thrashing servants and riding horses to death. It was an earlier time. But changes such as Athos’s former title no longer being a secret or a subplot with him him being found guilty of murder with the others having 4 days to prove his innocence? What? I’m sorry, was there not enough intrigue in the book? The director seemed to want a grittier version, which makes a change from the last few versions I’ve seen (The 2014 TV series and 2011 and 1993 films), and this gives us a King Louis who’s far more serious and less comic relief. On the other hand, Porthos swinging both ways I fully support, if only for the hope that it will annoy some horrible people on the internet.

And now, the part I’m sure you’re all waiting for my thoughts on: the fencing. Previous adaptions have been full of swordplay, some of it more functional and historically accurate than others. And yes, there is some swordplay in this (Though not enough for me), and it looks good, but it’s frustratingly directed with Michael Bay-esque swirling camera work mixed with closeups that obscure a lot of what’s going on. Given how much of my interest in the film is in the swordplay, that’s a pretty big strike against it. I’m sure the vast majority of cinema goers won’t have issues with it, even if people near me were shocked in parts. The fucker who’s phone rang though, deserves a punch in the junk. It’s 2024, surely cinema phone etiquette is a thing? I know we don’t have easily affordable cyborg replacement limbs (Cyberpunk 2020, you lied to me!), but putting ‘do not disturb’ on your phone should be a reflex action by now. Also, my screening’s gunfire was mighty damn loud for my tastes. Was it that way to evoke how loud real gunfire is? I can’t say, but it sure got my attention.

I’ll admit this review is clouded by circumstance, and had I arrived with a healthy amount of time to spare I may be feeling better about it. I certainly want to see it again, fully this time, and I’m sure it’ll be taking it’s place on my shelf before long. The 1973/4 adaption still reigns above all for me (The lunch fight in Three is my happy place), though I’ll admit the scenery chewing contest between Tim Curry and Oliver Platt in the 1993 version does warm my heart and makes it worth enduring Charlie Sheen. Things may improve after seeing Part 2, titled Milady, as well. But at this stage I can’t give it more than 6/10.