The Film: The Three Musketeers (aka The Three Musketeers: The Queen’s Diamonds)
The Premise: D’Artagnan (Michael York), a young starry-eyed swordsman, arrives in Paris with dreams of becoming a king’s musketeer. He meets and quarrels with three men, Athos (Oliver Reed), Porthos (Frank Finlay), and Aramis (Richard Chamberlain), each of whom challenges him to a duel an hour apart. When the musketeers are attacked by the Cardinal Richelieu’s (Charlton Heston) guards, D’Artagnan joins in, endearing himself to the trio. D’Artagnan finds himself lusting after his landlord’s busty wife, Constance Bonancieux (Raquel Welch), who becomes mixed up in Richelieu’s sinister plot to ruin the Queen, which means soon D’Artagnan finds himself mixed up in it, which means that soon the three musketeers find themselves mixed up in it too, which means… sword fights!
Is It Good: Yes. For the most part. This is a weird movie. Director Richard Lester (A Hard Days Night, Superman II clean-up) gives the film the dirty, realistic visual tone of a serious period drama, like Amadeus; the world he and his art, set, and costume departments created is truly impressive and feels lived-in from the moment we see it. The sheer amount of mammoth locations the shoot had access to is eye-boggling. You like giant palaces? Fuggitaboutit. What makes this a weird film is that it isn’t a serious period drama. It’s a wacky comedy, downright silly in the style of then contemporary British comedy. It takes a moment to get used to, but once you go with it the combination is fantastic. It also suits the source material surprisingly well. D’Artagnan’s quickness to duel everyone he ever meets frankly makes more sense when played for absurdist humor.
Oddly enough, where the film falters is with the three musketeers themselves, and most surprisingly – with the sword fighting. The film seems to be banking on our existing knowledge and perception of Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, as they’re barely given any kind of set up. This prevents them from clicking together as a unit until nearly the end of the film. They also feel secondary to the story, often serving no particular purpose other than comic relief. As for the sword fights…
Is It Worth A Look: …anyone looking for old fashion swash-buckling adventure will be left a little disappointed. Three Musketeers was typical of its period in wanting to break free from long-running Hollywood tropes and move towards realism, and not unlike Polanski’s Macbeth, the film chose to forgo classic movie swordplay. There are no Errol Flynn style epic fencing matches winding up staircases, no expertly choreographed dance-like duels like Pirates of the Caribbean. The fighting in Musketeers can best be described as brawling. Sometimes it works – like a wild and slapstick-laden fray in a royal laundry room or a knockdown catfight between Welch and Faye Dunaway – but over the course of the whole film I was left chomping at the bit for some good ol’ metal on metal. Just a taste! I think having had even just one big fencing sequence could’ve solved the issue completely. All-in-all it is a fun, richly detailed film with a great cast (also featuring Christopher Lee and Veruca Salt’s father, Roy Kinnear).
Random Anecdotes: While shooting the movie all the actors believed they were starring in a mighty 3 hour epic until it was announced, after production wrapped, that the picture would be split into two films. The entire cast, aside from Charlton Heston, sued the production. I guess Heston didn’t care cause he was, uh, so old school? So Republican? I don’t know. Anyway, I think this offers up at least some explanation for why the three musketeers feel somewhat secondary in the film, as we’re only witnessing half their arc.