FIRST PIC FROM THE THREE W.S.KETEERS

When I first saw the picture, my first thought was "Is that Michael Cera"?

Waifish? These guys mostly fought with épées, not two-handed battle axes. Small and light, therefore quick, would be an advantage.

Dear Mr. Oliver:

1973. Richard Lester. Michael York, Oliver Reed, Raquel Welch, Charlton Heston, Faye Dunaway, Christopher Lee.

Get on it. And never speak of that '93 turd again.

Seriously, go watch it. It's on Netflix. Go.

Kudos for the article title.

http://www.chud.com/articles/article...ERS/Page1.html

A bit let down to see that some callow youth is in the lead. I'd been under the impression (what with the title) that Stevenson would be part of a leading trio of manly heroes. Oh well, he looks incredible in that photo all the same. It gets my heart beating just to see him in such a nifty outfit, and the grin on his face tells ne he is having a great time in the film. Absolutely can not wait for this. Ray Stevenson... In 3D! Praise be to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, my prayers have been answered!

PS A repeating musket, Mr Oliver? The hero of the XIIIth laid waste to plenty of people long before the invention of automatic weapons. Also, DDL proved that a single shot flintlock can be even cooler than a hundred assault rifles in LOTM

PS Personally, I think WARZONE MUSKETEERS sounds even better

David Oliver, Now all we need on the newest...Three Musketeers, is the trailer. I think the 1993 Musketeer film, and The Musketeer are terrible. I did enjoy...The Man In the Iron Mask. This should at least be entertaining. All for one, one for all!

Outside of Stevenson this looks like shit served on a hot plate.

Congrats financiers.

Welcome back Orlando Bloom!

...I'm sure somebody's missed you.

And this is basically the same role that he fumbled in Troy. If we're supposed to believe that a powerful woman would risk war and her station for love of a man, you should probably cast an actual man in the role.

Not written by David Oliver. What's your point?

This. A thousand times this. I still remember wanting to puke after seeing the '93 POS. Or murder someone. Or puke while murdering someone.

I would see the shit out of this movie.

Like Mr Oliver, I too harbor fond memories for the 93 version. I've written about this on the board before, but the day I saw it was the day I finally counted aloud to 1000. Films can hold meaning for us because of their ability to capture a moment in time, and so for me seeing that strange, kind of cold cryptic movie (I was not familiar with the story before hand, and the plot was largely lost on me) remains a kind of magical childhood experience

I can definitely understand how not everyone would be a fan though

Anyway, even if it's PWSA as director, Stevenson (and the villainous rogue's gallery lined up against him) should be able to carry the film to some degree on charisma alone. I am curious to see 3D swashbuckling, especially given the fact Stevenson's entire career is to some degree based on his ability to sword fight (going back to Dog Soldiers). 3D means that you need to cut less swiftly, and perhaps PWSA will find himself forced to abandon his usually impenetrable frenetic editing and resort to wide shot single take well choreographed Titus Pullo action. Who could ask for more from the movies?

I agree with David in that I too am partial to the '93 version. Mostly good cast and a nice little swashbuckling adventure. The original text may be weightier than that, but it was a fun time at the movies.

This, seems like it'll be something of a mess.

The '93 version gave us that Bryan Adams/Rod Stewart/Sting monstrosity. It's unforgivable.

Am I the only one that sees the potential genius of casting Waltz as Aramis? But no, he had to be fucking Richelieu. Such a waste of an actor. Hollywood casting infuriates me sometimes.

But he became famous playing a villain! He must be the villain!

Why do we still let W.S. touch cameras?

Because people who fully expect his movies to stink continue to pay to see them, thus causing them to turn a profit, leading the studios to the conclusion that people like him.

Waltz could carry the whole movie into actually being worthwhile. In his fucking sleep. How could they not see this? He turned a bonafide sociopathic murderer into the most charming role of the year. He would kick godly amounts of ass as Aramis. Wouldn't even need a script, always a bonus in a Paul W.S. Anderson movie. I feel dumb for even having to say this.

I'm really looking forward to the movie whose director realizes that Waltz would make a great leading man. We shouldn't be terribly surprised that Anderson isn't that director.

I know that Aramis isn't a lead role, but still...

Just to reiterate, if you consider yourself any kind of film lover, and the only version of The Three Musketeers you've seen is the '93 version, hang your head in shame, and only raise it when you've got the '73 version on the TV. Hell, even the Gene Kelly version would be an improvement.

The '93 version was fine. Keifer was good and Oliver Platt was great and Michael Wincott was Michael Wincott. This is the sort of classic story which asks to be remade every fifteen to twenty five though, if only to introduce it to a new generation.

And I have no objection to that, as long as it's done well. "Fine" doesn't cut it.

I agree about the 93 version its fun.

It was fine, but it really wasn't anywhere close to being horny enough. Something that I'll always have high on my list of things that a Three Musketeers movie must be.

No point, just a good writeup of a good film.

Alright, alright, FINE! Everything must be either GREATEST EVER or EPIC TURD with no room inbetween for things which are merely fun or entertaining without being Earth-shatteringly magical or shithouse. I get it!

I'll watch that damned '73 version you're so rock hard over, but by jove if it doesn't blow my socks off your cred will be on shaky ground with me mate. Shaky ground indeed.

The Leo Man in the Iron Mask was a better Three Musketeers film than the '93 Three Musketeers.

Oooo, Greg's gonna get you sucka!

The '93 film is an abomination, riding by on goodwill for Wincott and Curry's intestinal-pain-inducing Scooby Doo villain. I'm generally someone who's fine with different iterations and versions of the same characters/story, but Lester's versions are so much better I can't even imagine willingly watching the '93 version again.

So what you're saying is I shouldn't watch Lester's because it will rob me of the enjoyment of Charlie Sheen's version?

The '73 Three Musketeers is fun and a great goof, but the sequel overdoes it for me. Strictly speaking, we still haven't had a de facto representation of the trio onscreen.

In a strange, twisted way, I suppose I am.

While I disagree, I don't disagree strongly enough to argue the point. Iron Mask was a fine film, and I really enjoyed it. Gerard Depardiue actually equaled Frank Finlay as the definitive Porthos for me. That's high praise.

That said though, I think it works infinitely better if you've seen the Lester film first. The ending of Iron Mask really plays on the weight of the characters being legendary to the current generation, and I think that plays better if you've experienced the legend firsthand.

What is it with Mads M playing eye-troubled characters?

Raquel in Lester's swashbuckling 2fer... YES please!

The 93 version stunk. It bore, for much of it, little resembelance to the Dumas novel.
The Lester version is definintive, and the 48 Gene Kelly/MGM version is not bad. Both are better then the 93 abortion.

Wait, some people are claiming a Musketeers movie that has CHARLIE SHEEN in it isn't an abomination?

Holy shit.

Even if you think that it's bad, can you really say that Charlie Sheen is the worst thing in it? C'mon.

Yeah, it's not some crime against nature. It's not good but it's not horrible. If you want horrible, I submit to you that wire-fu one. I don't even remember what it was called.

The Musketeer, I believe.

Correct. That was a fucking stinker.

The HK Style Sword Fighting was kinda impressive though.

The Du-what what-vel?