IMDb user comments for
The Four Musketeers (1974)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

20 comments in total

---

15 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Recommended, 30 July 2001

Author: Ephraim Gadsby from USA

Don't watch this movie alone. That is, watch Richard Lester's "The Three Musketeers" with it. The two are actually the same film, shot simultaneously (in fact, the cast thought they were making one long movie, to the extent that they were *paid* for one movie; they later sued, as well they should have). In fact, one who hasn't seen Lester's "Three Musketeers" might not understand this movie. Videos and DVDs should be released only in a double-box.

Most "Musketeer" movies are travesties loosely based on Dumas. The 1993 version with Chris O'Donnell is a case in point. It uses little more than the names of characters, and it's woefully inadequate.

The script-writer in Lester's "Musketeers" movies was George MacDonald Fraser, author of the "Flashman" series. And Fraser, unlike writers of all other "Musketeer" movies, seems to have read the book. Some of the wildest things in both movies (for instance, Buckingham's shrine to Anne of Austria) are actually from Dumas. The script, rambunctious and silly as sometimes is, is startlingly close to the book.

Rumor has it that Lester envisioned "Musketeers" as a project for the Beatles. If this is true, he's fortunate he lost them. The cast is uniformly wonderful. Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, and Frank Finlay are perfect in their roles (Finlay is particularly marvelous as he, not a large man, is able to portray the huge, blustering Porthos). Michael York is a fun D'artagnan. Faye Dunaway and Christopher Lee are suitably evil. Rachel Welch, the Pamela Anderson of the late '60s, shows a flair for light comedy that was not often utilized (most of her other movies highlight her . . . ahem . . . other talents). Charlton Heston is the anchor at the center of the film as the scheming Richelieu. He doesn't have much screen time, but his presence dominates the movies, as well it should. Lester also has small parts filled with amazing talents, including Spike Milligan and Roy Kinnear. Keep your eye on a genuine Frenchman, Jean-Pierre Cassel, as the king (and, much later, in Lester's "Return of the Musketeers", as Cyrano); he's a delight in every scene.

Lester's locations are fabulous. His France looks lived-in. One gets the sense of a long, medieval period that has decayed by the time of D'artagnan in the early 1600s, and of a struggling monarchy dominated by the Cardinal trying to rebuild it. Even Cardinal Richelieu, who wasn't really evil, comes off as three-dimensional (compare Heston's subtle performance to Tim Curry's bizarre, anti-historical, one-dimensional inquisitor and fool in the 1993 version).

Being "The Three (Four) Musketeers", there are many sword-fights; Lester somehow is not a great action director, but he somehow manages to make each duel unique, and funny. In "The Four Musketeers" he's given us a duel on the ice between York and Lee that's very funny. And the climactic duel in a church is sublime.

In 1989 Lester released "Return of the Musketeers" with the same cast. Fraser's brief script for that movie (about 100 minutes) gives us the gist of "Twenty Years After", and is quite amusing and a good coda for the series (it's a shame Lester didn't get a chance to do "The Man in the Iron Mask" with a G. M. Fraser script and the same cast. The version with Jeremy Irons and John Malkovich will do, though it's darker and less loyal to Dumas).

On the whole, "The Three Musketeers" and "The Four Musketeers" are the best Musketeer movies ever made. They star men and women who were at the top of their profession at the time. The scripts are superb and there's not a wasted moment. Do not accept lesser substitutes.

---

12 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Darker, Equally Magnificent MUSKETEER Sequel..., 30 January 2004
Author: Ben Burgraff (cariart) from Las Vegas, Nevada

THE FOUR MUSKETEERS, the second half of Richard Lester's brilliant adaptation of Dumas' THE THREE MUSKETEERS, carries on the manic adventures of D'Artagnan (Michael York), and his comrades (Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain, and Frank Finley), and offers deliriously comic moments (a picnic in the midst of a siege is a comic highlight), but in being faithful to the novel, a necessary but tragic thread runs through the plot, with the deaths of key characters tempering the joy of the ultimate resolution.

Because the film wasn't intended to 'stand on it's own', certain elements had to be added, to make the story more cohesive. The most obvious addition is a voice-over introduction by Porthos (Frank Finley), who reminisces about the events on screen. The choice of Finley is a wise one, as he was the most accessible of the characters in the first film, and his "blissfully ignorant" attitude keeps his opening and closing monologues a 'tongue-in-cheek' joy.

Politics and intrigue are the order of the day, as Cardinal Richelieu (Charlton Heston, still sleekly villainous) continues his machinations to eliminate French Protestants, and his major opponent, England's Prime Minister, the Duke of Buckingham (Simon Ward). A key player in 'the game' is Milady de Winter (Faye Dunaway, in one of her best roles), who agrees to eliminate Buckingham, if Richelieu will pardon 'in advance' her plans to murder D'Artagnan and his ladylove, Constance (Raquel Welch). The note he signs would become a key element of the story.

Hoping to protect Constance, D'Artagnan sends her to an Abbey, then impetuously begins an affair with de Winter, not realizing the woman's ultimate goal. Only the discovery of a 'Fleur-de-Lis' tattoo on her arm, branding her a 'harlot', saves the boy, as it unbalances the woman long enough for him to temporarily subdue her, and escape. The news of de Winter's brand exposes Athos' aristocratic past, and reason for his alcoholism.

Just as Van Heflin's interpretation of Athos during this key scene in the 1948 THREE MUSKETEERS was the film highlight, the flashback to a younger, clean-shaven, and dashing Oliver Reed, and his betrayal by Faye Dunaway, who would be branded for her crime, is a high point in the 1974 production. Milady is a calculating, insensitive monster, and as the depth of her potential for evil becomes known, the darkness that is introduced nearly overcomes the film. With a cunning almost feral, she ruthlessly arranges the death of Buckingham, then takes care of Constance personally. Finally captured by the four Musketeers, her doom, while justified, is a jarring counterpoint to the earlier adventures of the happy-go-lucky quartet.

Yet the four comrades survive, and with the possession of Richelieu's note to Milady, are not punished for their actions, but granted extraordinary rewards by King Louis. Richelieu himself is impressed by D'Artagnan's amazing talent and luck, and arranges a promotion for the young Gascon.

As the four friends leave the Palace, facing far different futures, Porthos reflects on the camaraderie of the friends, and through flashbacks, we are reminded of the glorious adventure we've shared with them.

THE THREE and FOUR MUSKETEERS are a crowning achievement in Richard Lester's remarkable career, capturing a 'feel' that no other Dumas' adaptation has ever come close to. While the sequel may lack the unrestrained 'joy' of the first film, when seen together, the overall impact of the saga is unforgettable.

They don't come any better than this!

---

9 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
NOT a Sequel! A 2nd Half to a Long Movie, 3 February 2003

Author: jbirtel (jbirtel@bluefrognet.net) from United States

FINALLY...a DVD release called 'The Complete Musketeers' that does justice to a proper transfer, in widescreen and looking better than when I saw it in the theater.

Watching 'The Three Musketeers' without seeing the 'The Four...' is like reading the Alexander Dumas novel; and stopping halfway through. It's a shame that it wasn't released as a roadshow 3 and a half hour film because that was the way it was originally meant to be experienced.

Phenomenal DVD package that contains both films...just the way it should be. And some very informative documentaries with the surviving cast.

9 out of 10! (Same as my rating for 'Three Musketeers')

---

7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
The cast shines bright, 25 July 2004
Author: shu-fen from Hong Kong, China

Raquel Welch, Richard Chamberlain, Michael York, Geraldine Chaplin, Faye Dunaway, Charlton Heston, boy oh boy what a shining list of major stars of the 70's. The movie attracts my attention first because of the most-read French story, second the cast is absolutely another one. The chivalry tale is always the love of the directors and we have about 20 productions bearing the same name within the short movie history. The Spanish setting e.g. the fight in the old church is marvellous, I guess filming in Spain at that time didn't cost too much. Just look at the scheming and wicked black female spider Faye Dunaway is already a pure and high entertainment, and Michael York then looked really innocent and like loverboy.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
"By my order, and for the good of the state, the bearer has done what has been done.", 11 April 2003
Author: grendelkhan from Xanadu

Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan are back; or more precisely, are still here; for the second half of the Dumas novel. As I'm sure most fans know, this was meant to be part of the complete Three Musketeers, before the Salkinds split it into two films. This led to much litigation and the creation of the "Salkind clause" in movie contracts.

Spoliers-The film takes up where the first part left off; D'Artagnan and the Musketeers have saved the Queen from embarassment and confounded the evil Cardinal Richelieu. D'Artagnan is now a full fledged Musketeer (although, in the novel, he was still just a guardsman).

Now the Cardinal hatches a new plot to persuade the Duke of Buckingham from joining the protestant Huguenot rebels at the city of La Rochelle. Milady is sent to persuade him to change his mind or kill him. Although Buckingham imprisons her, he underestimates the power of her charms. The Duke meets a tragic end and Milady returns to France to seek her revenge on D'Artagnan.

Meanwhile, D'Artagnan rescues his mistress Constance and places her in safekeeping. He learns the true identity of Milady and the mystery behind Athos' melancholy.

The Musketeers are sent to fight at La Rochelle and uncover the Cardinal's plot to kill Buckingham. Although the other Musketeers care little, D'Artagnan owes a debt to Buckingham and tries to stop the plot.

D'Artagnan pays a terrible price for his efforts, but emerges as a lieutenant of the Musketeers. He has taken his place as the leader of the group, but will find little solace in his promotion.

As with the first film, the performances are spot on. Everything is the same, as it was filmed at the same time. It is best viewed as a whole with the Three Musketeers.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Superb!, 16 October 2002
Author: piaffe417

I was forced to wait 6 months between watching "The Three Musketeers" and getting an opportunity to watch this "sequel" (shot at the same time) and it was agony, though I was somewhat afraid that the second one would not live up to its predecessor. I am glad to say that I was completely wrong and that this one more than lives up to its companion. The action is just as fast and the characters as endearing (because, as we learn, only Porthos could find "a new way to disarm himself" - and then make it work when it counted!) But comedy aside (such as our heroes eating breakfast in the middle of a battle), the serious turns that had to be taken in order to stay true to Dumas' novel were very well done also. Oliver Reed imparts his loathing for Milady DeWinter not only with his words, but also with the expression in his [gorgeous] eyes and when he holds her at gunpoint in order to get the Cardinal's warrant, several seconds go by in which you as a viewer actually believe that he will kill her right there in cold blood. In fact, Reed is, in my opinion, truly the star of this picture as his character of Athos attempts to mentor young D'Artangan and prevent him from being hurt. Michael York is, as usual, wide-eyed and very courageous and Finlay and Chamberlain continue to be terrific fops but it is Reed that carries them through. Kudos also have to go to Faye Dunaway as Milady - she is truly evil and charming at the same time and you can see how her character manages to be so good at what she does. I encourage everyone to see this movie - especially as a companion to "The Three Musketeer" - and support those in favor of having an edited-together three hour version. It is truly a classic. (And side note to my fellow students - if you don't have time to read the book "The Three Musketeers," rent these two movies and you'll get the gist of what you need to know.)

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Part two of a great action/adventure film, 3 November 1998

Author: Colin R. Glassey from Bay Area, CA USA

This film is part two of the movie "Three and Four Musketeers".

This film is somewhat more serious in tone as is warranted by the events described in the book. Not quite as fun as the first movie but true to the classic story writen by Dumas back in 1850.

(additional comments are duplicate comments made about the Three Musketeers)

This set of films (3 and 4 Musketeers were filmed at the same time and released 8 months apart) ranks right up there with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Robin Hood" (with Erol Flynn) as one of the best in its genre (action/adventure). As an historian, I enjoyed the small touches of historical accuracy in the film. As far as I can tell, everything is just about bang-on: the costumes, the settings, the weapons, the street life, and the musketeers themselves (and yes I know the story is not "true"). The two films are quite faithful to the classic book by Alexander Dumas given some small and reasonable changes.

The sword-play in the film is the greatest! The initial duel against the Cardinal's men in the Convent is a masterpiece of choreographed combat. The battle that takes place early in the second film is hysterically funny as our heroes try to eat lunch in the middle of a war.

The actors and actresses are all wonderful, especially Michael York, Oliver Reed, Faye Dunaway, and Charlton Heston. One small weakness in the film is that it does not have the time or interest in describing how Milady de Winter seduces her jailor. I suggest reading the book to get a full understanding of that sequence of events.

Be warned, prolonged exposure to this film is likely to result in a desire for fencing lessons and historical reenactments.

Bottom line: A great film.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent, 8 December 2004

Author: riscott-1 from United States

This movie is excellent. The Four Musketeers, along with the first movie, are the only movie versions that are remotely accurate to Alexandre Dumas's masterpiece novel, The Three Musketeers.

The action and sword fighting in this film are great. They only add to a great story, and don't try to make up for a poor one.

The only drawback is the portrayal of Raquel Welch's character, Constance. In the movie, she is too clumsy and ditsy. Constance is supposed to be smarter.

Overall, I thought this film was great. I would recommend reading the book. However, if you hate reading, then you should watch this movie, along with the Three Musketeers, because they are the closest to the book. The Four Musketeers shows that it is possible to make a version of the Three Musketeers that's accurate to the book and still enjoyable to watch.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
The rest of the (incredible) story......, 24 April 2002
Author: Poseidon-3 from Cincinnati, OH

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This "sequel" (actually filmed along with "The Three Musketeers" but released separately later--much to the consternation of its cast who had intended to do one film and were paid for one, but who later sued for compensation! That would make a movie in itself!) brings all the elements of the first film together for a shattering finale. The films play MUCH better back to back so that the interest and emotion carry through from the beginning to the end. Still, this is quite effective and a more thorough fleshing out of the second tier of the story than what has ever been shown before (even though many elements and even characters have been eliminated.) Rising to the forefront this time around is the fiendish, dangerous, glamorous Dunaway as Milady de Winter. Fans of "Mommie Dearest" will see the groundwork she laid here when she mistreats her servant girl, Kitty. Dressed up to the hilt in satin, feathers, beads and ruffles she is a towering presence, as striking to watch as she is deadly. She displays some truly menacing expressions along with some high comedy. It will be a long time before a viewer will forget Dunaway's scream as she is branded a harlot (in flashback.) Reed gets to show more range in this half as well and he's excellent. They make for an unusual and intriguing pairing. Some of the stars of the first film get shorter shrift here (Chaplin, Ward, Welch), but all are still around and have their moments. Then underused actors from part one (Lee, Dunaway) get their turn here. Welch is actually funnier in this half than in the first with her mishaps after she is held captive. Certain images linger in the memory...Dunaway's encounter with some Indians in England, her use of a rosary in the convent, Welch's safekeeping of the key to her shackles, Lee's final sword duel, flashbacks of Reed and Dunaway as a couple and the sequence with the executioner. These are just a few of the many vivid scenes in the film which also include sword fights on the ice and in a burning barn. Though certainly a companion piece to "The Three Musketeers", this is a magnificent piece of film on its own and was inexplicably ignored at most awards ceremonies.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Not As Good as It's Predecessor, 8 December 2002
Author: fabledmabel from Orange County, CA.

The previous posts were very detailed and accurate, so I'm only going to add a few points.

First, although this movie was filmed along with the first, it's almost as though the scenes in this one were edited from the first because they just seem to be more lackluster. This one has much more "outside" filming, and they couldn't have chosen a more barren wasteland than this particular area in Spain - it was very colorless and depressing. Also, this one didn't seem as opulent as the first, in regards to costumes and scenery and such (again strange since this one and the first were actually one long shoot!).

A previous poster stated that Jean-Pierre Cassel was a joy in every scene he was in; this is true, but he had a WAY smaller part in this one, which was a major disappointment since his scenes are some of the best in both movies.

All in all, if you like The Three Musketeers you will like The Four Musketeers, but perhaps not quite as much.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history