I have been a fan of Alexandre Dumas since childhood and know his musketeer trilogy almost by heart. Naturally, I have been looking forward to the new French (!) screen version of the first book for the last several months, especially as this winter I also watched (and enjoyed) the BBC TV series The Musketeers for the first time and was curious how the two will compare. Otherwise, my ideal screen version is the Russian (Soviet) TV film of 1979, as, despite its general naiveté it captured the spirit of the book: youthful friendships, unconditional loyalty, boundless belief in one's strength, humour and fearlessness. But I am always open to new interpretations of the material.
Unfortunately, the new French movie proved to be disappointing for me. Yes, one should give credit where it's due: the iconic locations such as the Louvre, Fontainebleau, Les Invalides, Chantilly will make the heart of any Dumas' fan melt, especially after many low-budget substitutions we saw in other productions. The costumes also deserve nothing but praise: the luxury, the ornaments, multiple layers, abundance of the smallest details, the worn-off effect - even an untrained eye can see how much hard work and skill went into these. The masquerade ball at Duke Buckingham's palace is where this work culminates: I would be ready to rewatch the film just to be able to once again admire the Duke and Milady's costumes as well as those of other guests.
And yet, despite all of this splendour, the movie seems to have completely missed the spirit of the book. It happens, however, not because the filmmakers preferred form over substance, but because the script writers happened to be too smart for their own good. Whether to demonstrate their creative potential or to make the movie more exciting for those who remember the source material, they started to gild the lily. As a result, in addition to the original diamonds adventure the film follows an even more complicated plot line: a Protestant conspiracy against the King. Both arcs are filled with insignificant scenes built in in order to keep the viewer entertained (for example, Athos' attempt to frighten d'Artagnan in the woods). As a consequence, the screen time of all key figures is spread thin between many different events, and they barely have time to say and do things required to pack all the plot milestones into the allotted film length, while their characters and relationship to one another remains un(der)developed. Unfortunately, the musketeers themselves are the first to fall victim to this problem. The friendship and true affection binding four very different people, each with a distinct persona of his own, are the cornerstones of the novel. And yet in the movie we hardly see them together at all: multiple events demand that the group splits between different plot lines in order to tick all the plot boxes. Neither do they get a chance to express themselves properly and demonstrate their signature traits we know from the books: Athos' aristocratic attitudes, d'Artagnan's cleverness and shrewdness, Porthos' good nature & vanity, Aramis' finesse and piety. Coupled with the casting choices that made the characters so much older than their prototypes, it makes it even more difficult for the viewer to believe in their friendship, as older people rarely bond as closely as the musketeers did in the novel.
Supporting characters find themselves in a similar situation: the omnipotent Cardinal Richelieu only shows up in a few scenes, and his true goals remain unknown. It is never explained why he is an enemy to the Queen: neither unrequited romantic feelings nor political agenda are mentioned (obviously disgracing the Queen is not the only way to start a war with England, if we assume that this is his ultimate goal). Louis XIII is simply badly written, what a waste of Louis Garrel's acting talent: his character doesn't come off as either comical or tragic or as having much intelligence. Vicky Krieps as the Queen is more lucky as she is given at least two dramatic scenes in which to shine and be remembered. Eva Green as Milady is good, but not surprising, for the actress has been playing similar roles for many years. I was somewhat perplexed by the story of her relationship with Athos (as far as it was touched upon in the first installment) being largely borrowed from BBC's The Musketeers, including the role Athos' brother plays in identifying her as a criminal.
As I said in the beginning, I think that the lack of character development is a result of the overloaded script and not due to subpar acting. Yes, the film does surprise even those well familiar with the book, but it comes at a very big expense, as none of the characters resonates with the viewer emotionally. One hopes that they will make a better job of it in the second installment to be released in December. In the meantime, given the sumptuous locations and wonderful costumes and the benefit of doubt, I'll give the film 6 starts out of 10.
Unfortunately, the new French movie proved to be disappointing for me. Yes, one should give credit where it's due: the iconic locations such as the Louvre, Fontainebleau, Les Invalides, Chantilly will make the heart of any Dumas' fan melt, especially after many low-budget substitutions we saw in other productions. The costumes also deserve nothing but praise: the luxury, the ornaments, multiple layers, abundance of the smallest details, the worn-off effect - even an untrained eye can see how much hard work and skill went into these. The masquerade ball at Duke Buckingham's palace is where this work culminates: I would be ready to rewatch the film just to be able to once again admire the Duke and Milady's costumes as well as those of other guests.
And yet, despite all of this splendour, the movie seems to have completely missed the spirit of the book. It happens, however, not because the filmmakers preferred form over substance, but because the script writers happened to be too smart for their own good. Whether to demonstrate their creative potential or to make the movie more exciting for those who remember the source material, they started to gild the lily. As a result, in addition to the original diamonds adventure the film follows an even more complicated plot line: a Protestant conspiracy against the King. Both arcs are filled with insignificant scenes built in in order to keep the viewer entertained (for example, Athos' attempt to frighten d'Artagnan in the woods). As a consequence, the screen time of all key figures is spread thin between many different events, and they barely have time to say and do things required to pack all the plot milestones into the allotted film length, while their characters and relationship to one another remains un(der)developed. Unfortunately, the musketeers themselves are the first to fall victim to this problem. The friendship and true affection binding four very different people, each with a distinct persona of his own, are the cornerstones of the novel. And yet in the movie we hardly see them together at all: multiple events demand that the group splits between different plot lines in order to tick all the plot boxes. Neither do they get a chance to express themselves properly and demonstrate their signature traits we know from the books: Athos' aristocratic attitudes, d'Artagnan's cleverness and shrewdness, Porthos' good nature & vanity, Aramis' finesse and piety. Coupled with the casting choices that made the characters so much older than their prototypes, it makes it even more difficult for the viewer to believe in their friendship, as older people rarely bond as closely as the musketeers did in the novel.
Supporting characters find themselves in a similar situation: the omnipotent Cardinal Richelieu only shows up in a few scenes, and his true goals remain unknown. It is never explained why he is an enemy to the Queen: neither unrequited romantic feelings nor political agenda are mentioned (obviously disgracing the Queen is not the only way to start a war with England, if we assume that this is his ultimate goal). Louis XIII is simply badly written, what a waste of Louis Garrel's acting talent: his character doesn't come off as either comical or tragic or as having much intelligence. Vicky Krieps as the Queen is more lucky as she is given at least two dramatic scenes in which to shine and be remembered. Eva Green as Milady is good, but not surprising, for the actress has been playing similar roles for many years. I was somewhat perplexed by the story of her relationship with Athos (as far as it was touched upon in the first installment) being largely borrowed from BBC's The Musketeers, including the role Athos' brother plays in identifying her as a criminal.
As I said in the beginning, I think that the lack of character development is a result of the overloaded script and not due to subpar acting. Yes, the film does surprise even those well familiar with the book, but it comes at a very big expense, as none of the characters resonates with the viewer emotionally. One hopes that they will make a better job of it in the second installment to be released in December. In the meantime, given the sumptuous locations and wonderful costumes and the benefit of doubt, I'll give the film 6 starts out of 10.