Richard Lester's adaptation of Dumas' literary masterpiece is simply terrific, and for me the definitive version. This sequel while not quite as good is still excellent and one of the better follow-ups out there. The film is not as efficiently paced as its predecessor, but so much compensates. The cinematography, costumes and scenery are all very lavish and beautiful and there is also a rousing and energetic score to compliment. The script is witty, the story is compelling and maintains the 1973 film's spirit and the sword-play and action while slightly more slapsticky is exciting. Plus the direction is great. The cast also give it their all- Michael York is spirited and likable, Oliver Reed once again comes very close to stealing the film, Fay Dunnaway is still beautiful and haunting, Charlton Heston is calculated and imposing and Christopher Lee is simply brilliant as Rochefort. All in all, very good and if you watch this and The Three Muskerteers head to head, you're in for a great time I assure you. 8/10 Bethany Cox

"The Three Musketeers" continues in this cobbled sequel, created as a cost measure for garnishing more profits from a single shoot.And this is the film's only real drawback. A distinct lack of coverage cuts into this film's otherwise fine pedigree, and instead of a fun, adventurous and humorous swashbuckler with dramatic overtones, we're given a film that, in spite of its great technical achievements, feels like it came out of the oven too soon.Most of us know the story of why, so I won't repeat it here in this review, but it's regrettable that the short sighted economics dictated the final cut of a film. A lack of cutaways, a new music director whose style is distinctly different from the original score, and some uncorrected shots, leaves "The Four Musketeers" falling a notch or two below its older brother.But, even so, the film is still entertaining. For all of its flaws and checkered history, the cinematic qualities that were achieved in this film's predecessor, are still found here for the most part. Dramatically the actors are left without a route to create something knew for the characters, and the plot plods somewhat from event-first to event-final. But the actors are able to sell it otherwise.The action scenes are fine, but again the epic scenes are truncated, leaving the audience only a taste of what might have been. And that's probably how best to describe the impromptu sequel to "The Three Muketeers". The action scenes are what they are; good in some areas, adequate in others.Anchor Bay's DVD, for some reason, doesn't include the French opening credits, but the extras and color corrected and digitally mastered DVD for both musketeer films is a welcome addition to anyone's library.In short, the second film is not quite as good as the first film, but is still very entertaining, and, in this way, still a very magnificent piece of cinema. Enjoy!p.s. the Anchor Bay edition DVD corrects the washed out copy I saw in the theatre 30 years ago. Thanks Anchor Bay.

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.

Great movie--one of my favorites. What makes it a 10 is Oliver Reed's heartbreakingly good performance as Athos--particularly two scenes: first, when he tells D'Artagnan "a love story to cure you of love", then his confrontation with Milady DeWinter ("Since when has it been possible to insult YOU, Madame!"). Milady's seduction of Fenton, and the ensuing assassination are chilling. And the whole set piece of the Four at the siege is great comedy, well played by all. The only serious departure from the book is D'Artagnan's duel with Rochefort at the end (but it IS a thrilling swordfight, so I don't mind). I had the good fortune to see this film and Three Musketeers on a double bill back in 1976 (how many of us are old enough to remember double bills at the movies?) when I was 16. Now I've got to buy the videos and watch them together again. "All for one, and one for all!" I wonder: where is the nearest fencing instructor?