"THE THREE MUSKETEERS" (2011) Review

"THE THREE MUSKETEERS" (2011) Review

Recently, I became aware of the BBC series called "THE MUSKETEERS" and became an instant fan. Due to my renewed interest in Alexandre Dumas père's work, I decided to focus my attention on 2011's "THE THREE MUSKETEERS", the most recent adaptation of the author's 1845 novel.

Produced and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, this cinematic version of Dumas père's novel, proved to be a different kettle of fish. Yes, screenwriters Andrew Davies and Alex Litvak managed to adhere to some aspects of the 1845 novel. The movie closely followed d'Artagnan's first meeting with his future three friends - Athos, Aramis and Porthos - along with Captain Comte de Rochefort and Milady de Winter. The rivalry between the Musketeers and Cardinal Richelieu's guard - led by Rochefort - remains intact. "THE THREE MUSKETEERS" also included a conspiracy created by Richelieu that centered around Queen Anne, Britain's Duke of Buckingham and the former's diamond necklace given to her by King Louis XIII.

But Davies and Litvak created changes to Dumas' story. One, Milady de Winter begins the story working with the three musketeers to steal airship blueprints created by Leonardo da Vinci. In this scenario, Milady and Athos are long time lovers and not a married couple. Their antipathy begins when Milady betray her compatriots and gives the plans to Britain's Duke of Buckingham. Her betrayal leads to the disbandment of the Musketeers. So, when d'Artagnan arrives in Paris to join the military unit, he is a year too late. Also, the Duke of Buckingham is portrayed more as a villain, since he is not The Constance Bonacieux is not only single in this story, but also one of the Queen's ladies-in-waiting; instead of married and a royal seamstress. Also, there is no real affair between Queen Anne and Buckingham. But Cardinal Richelieu decides to create false rumors using the Queen's diamond necklace and false love letters in order to discredit her. This would lead to Anne's execution, a war against Britain and a demand by the people that a more experienced leader - namely Richelieu himself - would rule France. Alas, thanks to Constance, d'Artagnan and the Musketeers step up to save the Queen's reputation and ruin Richelieu's plans.

It would be difficult for me to deny that "THE THREE MUSKETEERS" is a beautiful looking film. Germany served as 17th century France and Great Britain in this film and Glen MacPherson really did justice to the shooting locations, thanks to his beautifully sharp and colorful photography. MacPherson's photography also did justice to Paul D. Austerberry's production designs, whose re-creations of 17th century France and England struck me as spot on. Both MacPherson and Austerberry's work benefited from Philippe Turlure's set decorations and the art direction team of Nigel Churcher, Hucky Hornberger and David Scheunemann. But what really dazzled me about "THE THREE MUSKETEERS" were Pierre-Yves Gayraud's s costume designs. Personally, I found them worthy of an Oscar nomination. Below are three images just to prove my point:







There are aspects of "THE THREE MUSKETEERS" that did not exactly impress me. First of all, the chemistry between the four leads seemed a bit off. One might blame Logan Lerman, who was the only American in the team. But I had no problems with his chemistry with both Matthew MacFadyen and Ray Stevenson. And Luke Evans had a nice chemistry with both MacFadyen and Stevenson, despite his subdued take on his role. And I cannot blame MacFadyen, who seemed to be the odd man out as a screen swashbuckler. I am not saying that all four men - Lerman, MacFadyen, Evans and Stevenson - had no chemistry whatsoever. There was some inclination of a screen chemistry. But . . . their chemistry as the four musketeers never struck me as dynamic than in other versions I have seen.

Another major problem I had with the movie proved to be Davies and Litvak's re-writing of the Milady de Winter character. I had no problem with Milady starting the movie as colleague of Athos, Aramis and Porthos. I had no problem with her being Athos' lover, instead of his estranged spouse. I did have a problem with Milady being written as some kind of action woman. Many of her scenes featured actress Milla Jovovich engaged in some acrobatic stunt at a great height. I understand why. Both Jovovich and Anderson (who are married, by the way) are known for the "RESIDENT EVIL" movies, in which the actress had starred as the main protagonist. For some reason, the couple and the two screenwriters seemed to believe it was necessary to transform Milady into a female action figure. In doing so, all four robbed the Milady of the subtle villainy that made her such a memorable character in the novel and in other adaptations. I almost got the impression that Anderson and the screenwriters did not believe Jovovich lacked the ability to portray a seductive and manipulative villainess. Yet, one scene between Jovovich and actor Christoph Waltz (who portrayed Cardinal Richelieu) made it clear to me that the actress could have been a very effective Milady de Winter without resorting to countless number of stunts and other action scenes. Hmmm . . . pity.

Despite these misgivings, I must admit that I enjoyed "THE THREE MUSKETEERS". Much to my utter surprise. When I first saw the film, I was ready to reject it after the Venice sequence. The idea of Milady working with Athos, Aramis and Porthos on a mission in Venice was not how I recall previous adaptations of Dumas' novel. But I gave it a chance and decided to finish the film. And I enjoyed it. Actually, there were aspects of the movie that made it enjoyable for me. Aside from the movie's visual style and costumes, I enjoyed how Davies and and Litvak put a different spin on Dumas' story arc about Queen Anne's diamond necklace. I was also both surprised and impressed at how they utilized the heist movie trope in two major sequences - the opening scene in Venice and the Musketeers' attempt to get their hands on the diamonds, which were stolen by Milady and planted inside London's Tower of London.

Davies and Litvak's screenplay displayed a nice sense of humor. This was apparent in the personalities of three major characters - Porthos (who has been the comic relief of nearly all versions of Dumas' tale), King Louis XIII and surprisingly, the Duke of Buckingham, along with d'Artagnan's first meetings with his future three friends. The movie also featured some excellent action sequences. My favorite include the Musketeers and d'Artagnan's fight against Rochefort and the Cardinal's guards, the four friends' heist of the diamond necklace from the Tower of London, and their final showdown against Rochefort and his men upon their return to Paris. This last sequence featured an outstanding duel between d'Artagnan and Rochefort that in my opinion, rivaled the duel between the two characters in 1974's "THE FOUR MUSKETEERS".

I still stand by my belief that the chemistry between the four actors who portrayed the Musketeers and d'Artagnan was not as strong as it had been in other productions. But the movie did featured some solid performances from the four actors. Ray Stevenson displayed his usual talent for comedy in his performance as Porthos. Honestly, I think his comic skills are highly underrated. Luke Evans gave a decent performance as Aramis. However, I do wish he could have displayed a little more élan in his portrayal of the usually dashing womanizer. Matthew Macfadyen did a skillful job in portraying Athos' brooding nature and role as the group's leader. But I got the feeling that he was not the type of actor I would cast in a swashbuckling film. Of the four actors, he never struck me as the swashbuckling type. It is odd that I would say this about Macfadyen and not Logan Lerman, who portrayed d'Artagnan. But the thing about Lerman is although his looks strike me as mediocre and he seems to be the shortest of the four leads. Yet, once he opens his mouth and move, he becomes a bundle of energy with a good deal of style and panache. Curious.

Despite my complaints by Anderson and the screenwriters' attempt to turn Milady de Winter into an action queen, I must say that I still managed to enjoy Milla Jovovich's performance. She is the only actress I know who conveyed the spy's seduction skills with a good deal of sly humor. Christoph Waltz did a solid job as the villainous Cardinal Richilieu. But I must admit, I did not find his performance particularly memorable or energetic. I can also say the same about Gabriella Wilde, who portrayed Constance Bonacieux. I hate to say this, but I found her performance somewhat wooden. On the other hand, Juno Temple gave a very charming performance as Queen Anne (formerly of Austria). Not only did she give a charming performance, she also conveyed a good deal of the Queen's strength of character.

I really enjoyed Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of Captain Rochefort. The Danish actor did an excellent job of conveying Rochefort's subtle menace and talent for intimidation. Orlando Bloom proved to be quite a surprise as the villainous Duke of Buckingham. He was very funny in a sly, yet theatrical way. James Corden also gave a funny performance as Planchet, the Musketeers' long suffering manservant. But the funniest performance came from Freddie Fox, who portrayed the rather young King Louis XIII. What can I say? He was hilarious in his portrayal of the King's insecure nature and lack of experience as a leader. In fact, I believe he gave the best performance in the movie.

What else can I say about "THE THREE MUSKETEERS"? It is not particularly faithful to Alexandre Dumas père's novel. But to be honest, I do not really care. In my opinion, the movie's lack of adherence to the novel was not a weak point. The worst I can say about the movie is that the chemistry between the four actors portraying the Musketeers was not particularly strong. I did not care for the use of 17th century airships in this story. And I was not that impressed by the movie's tendency to portray Milady de Winter as an action figure. On the other hand, I still managed to enjoy the screenplay written by Andrew Davies and Alex Litvak, along with Paul W.S. Anderson's direction. And the movie also featured some strong performances - especially from Logan Lerman, Juno Temple, Orlando Bloom and Freddie Fox. In the end, I still enjoyed the film, despite my initial reservations.

"GAME OF THRONES" Season One (2011) Photo Gallery

Below are images from Season One of "GAME OF THRONES", HBO's adaptation of George R. R. Martin's 1996 novel from his A Song of Ice and Fire series, "A Game of Thrones". The series was created by David Benioff and D. B. Weiss: 



"GAME OF THRONES" SEASON ONE (2011) Photo Gallery

"Destruction in Comic Book Movies"

"DESTRUCTION IN COMIC BOOK MOVIES"

Two things happened to me recently.  One, I just finished a re-watch of the 2012 movie, “THE AVENGERS”.  And two, I came across this ARTICLE praising the MCU’s portrayal of the destruction of Midtown Manhattan in the film’s final action sequence and in many other films from the franchise.  

Now . . . not only did that article praised the Battle of Manhattan sequence in the 2012 movie, I had stumbled across another article even claimed that “THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON” handled massive destruction better than the 2013 movie, “MAN OF STEEL”. It also claimed that "THE AVENGERS" managed to achieve this, as well.  And if I must be honest, the article featured mainly photographs and shallow reasons that in my eyes, had failed to hold up.  

I have come to the conclusion that the media and many moviegoers were and still are incredibly hypocritical when it came to the MCU and the DCEU franchises.  They did not pitch a fit over the destruction featured in movies like “THE AVENGERS” and “AGE OF ULTRON”.  And when the MCU had finally decided to address the issue in the 2016 movie, “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”, it was more or less shoved aside for the Bucky Barnes manhunt and used as a motive in Helmut Zemo’s convoluted revenge plot against the Avengers.   Come to think of it, no one had raised a fuss over the destruction in Greenwich, England in 2013's “THOR: THE DARK WORLD”, aside from one comment used as a joke in Season One of “AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.”.

But when the Kryptonians under General Zod nearly destroyed downtown Metropolis with their World Machine in "MAN OF STEEL”, both the media and many moviegoers went into a SNIT FIT over the destruction.  They accused Zack Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer of going too far with the film’s sequence known as the “Black Zero Event”.  Many of them are still bitching about it to this day.  

Many articles and moviegoers had complained that Superman helped cause Metropolis’ destruction by not bothering to re-direct his fight against General Zod to a safer location.  In the 2013 movie, Superman had made two attempts to direct his fight against Zod away from Metropolis.  Unfortunately for him, Zod kept returning to Metropolis in his determination to kill Humans.  Many had also failed to notice that the Kryptonians’ World Machine was responsible for most of the destruction that was inflicted upon downtown Metropolis, while Superman was trying to destroy the damn thing.

In the end, the two Avengers movies received praise for its portrayal of the destruction of midtown Manhattan and Sokovia.  At the same time, many fans and critics have continued to criticize “MAN OF STEEL” for its destruction of Metropolis.  It is bad enough that some of those criticisms have been proven to be erroneous.  But many have failed to point out that the consequences of the movie’s “Black Zero Event” had a main role in the narrative for 2016′s “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE”.   I am not only amazed at this hypocrisy, but also disgusted.

"THE CLOCKS" (2009) Review

"THE CLOCKS" (2009) Review

While perusing the list of novels written by Agatha Christie between 1957 and 1973, I noticed that only five of them featured Belgian detective Hercule Poirot as the main detective. Five out of sixteen novels during this period. Considering how the author used to churn out Poirot novels and short stories like nobody's business in the previous decades, I could not help but wonder if the author's interest in the Belgian detective was on the wane.

This certainly seemed to be the case for her 1963 novel, "The Clocks". Although Poirot was the investigator who solved the mystery, he barely played a role in this investigation. Major supporting characters like Colin Lamb and Inspector Richard Hardcastle visited the crime scenes and questioned the suspects and other witnesses. They fed the information to Poirot, who exercised his "little grey cells" and solved the case. This is one reason why the 1963 novel was not a particular favorite of mine. Thankfully, the 2009 adaptation of "The Clocks" proved to be a different kettle of fish. Unlike his literary version for this tale, actor David Suchet's Poirot was, without a doubt, the mystery's main character.

Although the 2009 television movie, "THE CLOCKS", provided some minor changes to Christie's novel, it also featured two major changes. I have already commented on how Poirot had a bigger role (as he should) in this television adaptation. The setting for "THE CLOCKS" also underwent a major change. Instead of being set during the heyday of the Cold War, the 2010 television movie was set near the end of the 1930s, with Europe (and eventually the rest of the world) on the cusp of World War II. And the narrative's B-plot reflected this. In "THE CLOCKS", the character of Colin Lamb has been changed to Colin Race, conveying the idea that he is the son of of an old friend of Poirot's. And instead of being an MI-5 (Special Branch) agent investigating a pro-Communist spy ring, Colin is a Royal Navy officer working for MI-6 and investigating a possible pro-Nazi spy ring in Dover. Also, the character of Richard "Dick" Hardcastle has become a slightly xenophobic police officer, who resented Poirot's presence in the investigation. Despite these changes, the core of Christie's narrative managed to survive for this adaptation.

"THE CLOCKS" began as a spy story in which MI-6 operative Colin Race finds himself investigating the theft of classified documents from a naval base at Dover Castle. Apparently, Colin's girlfriend had spotted the thief/German spy, but was killed by a speeding car before she could apprehend the thief. Colin's girlfriend left a clue, leading Colin to a neighborhood in Dover. Upon reaching one house on a street shaped like a crescent, a young woman named Sheila Webb races out of it, screaming that she had found a murdered man inside, along with a collection of clocks. Colin seeks Poirot's help to solve the murder mystery, in case the murder proves to be connected with the spy ring he had been investigating and his girlfriend's death.

As I had earlier stated, I am not a big fan of Christie's 1963 novel. While some might find the idea of Poirot being reduced to a minor character who solves the mystery in an armchair rather amusing, I did not. I could not, especially if this was supposed to be a "Poirot" mystery. And as I had earlier pointed out, screenwriter Stewart Harcourt director Charlie Palmer ensured that Poirot would be the main character in this adaptation. I also enjoyed how the narrative allowed Poirot and Colin's search for the spy ring and missing document overshadow their efforts to find the killer responsible for the mystery man's death, along with the deaths of two other characters - Edna Brent, a typist and colleague of Sheila Webb's; and Merlina Riva, a former stage actress who claimed to be the widow of the dead man discovered by Colin and Sheila. Throughout the story, those viewers unfamiliar with Christie's novel might find themselves wondering if Sheila was responsible for the deaths, if the deaths had anything to do with the German spy ring, or if the three victims had been killed for another reason. Overall, I believe "THE CLOCKS" is a solid adaptation of Christie's novel, but also an improvement.

However, there is one aspect of Harcourt and Palmer's adaptation that I do not regard as an improvement. I refer to the character of Colin Race. One, this secondary lead character came off as less than intelligent than his literary counterpart. Colin was able to solve the mystery of the spy ring without Poirot's help. And two, in the television movie, he struck me as a slightly shallow man who was able to transfer his affections from one woman to another within a few days. I found this rather tacky. I believe Harcourt's screenplay made the mistake of having Colin involved with the doomed Fiona Hanbury, whose activities led him to another clue regarding the spy ring, at the beginning of the story. Worse, it did not take Colin very long to develop romantic feelings for Sheila Webb after meeting her. And he met Sheila in less than a week after Fiona's death. Even when he was still mourning Fiona's death, he was falling in love with Sheila. Really? This is just tackiness beyond belief. Colin's romantic relationships in this movie made him look like a shallow idiot who seemed to have this need for romance in his life 24/7.

The television movie's production values struck me as very impressive. I thought Jeff Tessler's production designs did a great job in recreating Dover circa 1939. His work was ably supported by Miranda Cull's art direction and Sheena Napier's costume designs. I have mixed feelings about Peter Greenhalgh's cinematography. On one hand, I found movie's photography very colorful and beautiful. In fact, I thought it did justice to the production's locations in London and Kent. But I did not care for the hazy veneer that I felt almost spoiled the photography. I found it an unnecessary device for indicating that this story was set in the past. And it reminded me of numerous period dramas in the 1970s that also used this camera device . . . unnecessarily.

I certainly had no problems with the movie's cast. David Suchet, as always, gave a sharp and elegant portrayal of Hercule Poirot. In fact, his performance reinforced my relief that the screenwriter and director had given Poirot a bigger presence in this adaptation than in Christie's novel. Despite my irritation with the Colin Race character, I cannot deny that Tom Burke gave an exceptionally skillful performance. He almost made me believe in the plausibility of Colin falling in love with one woman, while still grieving for another. I was very impressed by Jaime Winstone's portrayal of the ambiguous Sheila Webb. I thought she did an excellent job in conveying both the character's desperate need for everyone to believe in her innocence and her occasional lapses in morality. Phil Daniels was excellent as the slightly aggressive and xenophobic Inspector Richard "Dick" Hardcastle. Lesley Sharp gave a very subtle performance as Sheila's no-nonsense boss Miss Martindale. And I was very impressed with Anna Massey's performance as Miss Pebmarsh, the blind owner of the house that contained the dead man and the actress's final role before her death. Like Winstone, Massey did an excellent job of portraying a very complicated and ambiguous character, who was haunted by the deaths of her sons during World War I. The television movie also featured excellent performances from Geoffrey Palmer (father of the director), Tessa Peake-Jones, Jason Watkins, Beatie Edney, Abigail Thaw, Guy Henry, Stephen Boxer, and Frances Barber.

In the end, I believe that "THE CLOCKS" was a solid adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1963 novel, thanks to a first-rate script by Stewart Harcourt and first-rate direction by Charlie Palmer. My only true complaint was their handling of the Colin Race character. The television movie also featured excellent performances by a talented cast that included David Suchet, Anna Massey and Jaime Winstone.

"JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM" (2018) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM", the fifth installment in the JURASSIC PARK franchise and the sequel to the 2015 movie, "JURASSIC WORLD". Directed by J.A. Bayona, the movie starred Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard: 



"JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM" (2018) Photo Gallery