MovieChat Forums > The Three Musketeers (1974) Discussion > To Date the Film Version Most Faithful t...

To Date the Film Version Most Faithful to the Book

posted 11 years ago by dannieboy20906
8 replies | jump to latest

I have seen several versions of the "Three Musketeers" done on film. The Gene Kelly musical is actually reasonably faithful to the book. However, it does truncate the story severely in order to fit it into a reasonable time frame. Other than that, this, and the sequel "The Four Musketeers," is the only version that attempts to retell the story as it appears in Alexander Dumas's book.

The recent versions are execrable. The actors are good, and the costumes appropriate, but the story is tossed out the window. For me, the story comes first.

The "Three Musketeers" covers the first half of the book well and "The Four Musketeers" covers the second half. I don't know why so many writers and directors think that they must belittle the audience by making the film version an entirely different story from the book. They would never dare do that (most of them) to Shakespeare.

[–] kevin-bergin 11 years ago

Agree. Best version of all the Musketeers films and I am including the recent one, the 1990s version with Sheen and the 1940s version with Kelly.

[–] Rueiro 11 years ago

I have read the book, and Lester's adaptation is the best one ever made. Dumas basically wrote a satire on Louis XIII's reign and society, and that is just what you get here.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 10 years ago

The Gene Kelly version isn't a musical I don't think.

[–] dannieboy20906 10 years ago

You're right. Even though I've watched it and know it to not be a musical, I tend to make that association with Gene Kelly. He's actually a decent dramatic actor, but it's hard to see his name and automatically think "musical."

[–] MGurlea 10 years ago

dannieboy20906,

I have always like the Musketeer movies of the 1990s. Now I like the BBC America TV version. That inspired me to rent this 1973 version that many message boards say is the best. I have to say I didn't really like it. It was like a silly almost slapstick comedy. Is the book that goofy?

The plot also seemed a little convoluted too. The fight scene in the woods between Lee and York was terrible as well. I also thought York was way to old at 31 to play a teenager. I did like most everything else about this movie though. The sets, the costumes, the acting are all pretty good. It is a well made movie it seems for its time. It just was kind of silly to me. The other versions I mentioned above are a lot more serious. I know the 1993 version with Sheen and everyone is a little silly but not as much as this one.

When I send this one back I will get The Four Musketeers to watch. That looked like there might be some large battle scenes. Maybe I will like that one more. I also have been wanting to read the books. I just don't know what version to buy that is good.

[–] dannieboy20906 10 years ago

I have not seen the "BBC America TV version." BBC has a good reputation for choosing or producing well made presentations of literature. I may like it.

The book does not contain a lot of "slapstick" humor, which by its name is highly visual and only applies to stage and screen. However, the plot is highly convoluted and is nearly identical to what is depicted on the screen. Several of the sequences in the movie, e.g. the initial meeting between D'Artagnan and Rouchefort at the road house, when Rochefort ridicules D'Artagnan's horse and ruffians beat up D'Artagnan, come straight out of the book. It is often satirical and mocking of the characters, even its heroes.

All of the actors are too old for the parts they play. D'Artagnan is a youth of 19 and the other Musketeers are in their mid to late twenties (I think about 24 to 28). Their exploits have occurred within the last several years, not decades earlier. Otherwise, both movies (it takes both to cover the first book) are faithful renditions of the novel.

That's a good point, too. "The Three Musketeers" takes us about half-way through the book, to the point that D'Artagnan is accepted to the Musketeers after restoring the studs to the Queen. M'Lady's revenge and D'Artagnan's earning of a commission come in the second half of the book and in the later movie, "The Four Musketeers."

Later, Dumas wrote "Twenty Years After," about adventures of the four men in their middle age. They go on to appear in "The Man in the Iron Mask," that takes place another decade or so after that.

Dumas was a novelist, not a historian. His stories are fiction and include a lot of comedy, some of it satire.

[–] MGurlea 10 years ago

dannieboy20906,

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not sure why the 70's movies went slapstick then. That is what ruined the movies for me. I feel if they were a little more serious I would have liked them better.

It sounds like Logan Lerman was the only one who was the right age in the 2011 version. I disliked that movie as well though. Too over the top and a fantasy with too much CGI.

I will be watching "The Four Musketeers" next when it comes in the mail from Netflix.

Check out the current BBC America version. It is airing new episodes right now. It is new on Saturday nights at 9:00 PM EST. The episodes are an hour and fifteen minutes with commercials. It is currently airing the second season. You can watch the first season on Blu-ray or I think you can stream it on Amazon and Netflix. There are not many episodes so you can quickly catch up. It is really well done with high production values and good acting. The stories are good, interesting, and fun adventure. But the show is serious and not funny. I really like Aramis' matchlock carbine. I think Luke Pasqualino makes a great D'Artagnan. I know some people have problems with Porthos being half black and not a nobleman. However, I think it is going to be revealed soon that he might be of noble birth. But like you said Dumas was not a historian. Some have also mentioned the architecture is off where they film it in the Czech Republic. I have to say, I have been to France a few times and even visited the Louvre and Versailles and the Czech Republic is a decent stand-in. Sure the stuff in France is way more elaborate but I don't think that are going to let them film a TV show at those sites for months on end. The costumes are a little strange and unlike any Musketeers I have seen before. But I like it. And of course it is a bunch of Brits playing Frenchmen. But that is easily overlooked. Actually, this show might be one of my favorites right now. And I know some people who have said to me that they just would like to watch the show all day long.

It would be cool to see a version (TV or movie) that follows the books really closely with the only exceptions being for historical accuracy. Like a mash-up of good accurate history and the novels. Maybe even do it in French. I don't mind reading subtitles.

Anyway, let me know how you like the BBC America version. I'll let you know what I thought of "The Four Musketeers."

[–] MGurlea 10 years ago

dannieboy,

I just watched "The Four Musketeers." I did not really care for it much either. They should have kept these just one movie that's for sure. There is less humor in it which is better. However, I did like the scene where Rochefort faced the firing squad. I also liked the breakfast scene. That humor was very good and fit in well. The plot is still highly convoluted and it seems like the Musketeers should have known Milady and Rochefort were the bad guys but they did not. I see why the 1993 version changed the story and simplified it to a coup. The convoluted plot works better in a TV series than a 90 minute movie. The BBC America version gets pretty complicated story wise but works much better over the longer season.

I guess I need to read the books next. So far I still prefer the Disney 1993 version, "The Man in the Iron Mask" from 1998, and the currently airing BBC America version.