Alexander Dumas' great book has been adapted to film numerous times. And for a good reason, for it is a great story, full of adventure, political intrigue, great characters and daring deeds. Yet I'd claim that it is not really suited for being a movie. Or at least I haven't seen a version yet that manages to capture the spirit and greatness of the original novel.That being said, despite its obvious flaws, this particular film is actually rather enjoyable. Charlie Sheen, Kiefer Sutherland and Oliver Platt portray Aramis, Athos and Porthos, respectively, while Chris O'Donnell plays D'Artagnan. D'Artagnan is a son of a musketeer, an elite guard of the king of France, and is all set out to become one himself. Unfortunately, just as he travels to Paris, Cardinal Richelieu (Tim Curry) has disbanded the musketeers as obsolete and outdated, all while vying for power over the young king. And thus all the musketeers have put down their swords. All except three, thus the title.What the movie gets right is the energy and the adventure. All the main characters are played by good actors and they give solid, entertaining performances. Curry is especially enjoyable as a completely over the top villain. The action scenes are also very good and the whole film looks very nice, having great production values. Definitely a film for all adventure fans.Where the film fails is as an adaptation. The events of the book are not followed all that closely and a lot of the story lines have been completely dropped. And even when they follow the book, it seems that they are in a rush. Like the scene where D'Artagnan and the Three Musketeers meet for the first time. It is a classic scene that been imitated countless of times, but in this film it happens in under five minutes. Like they were in a terrible hurry, which is a real disservice to such a great scene.All in all, The Three Musketeers is at its best if you don't know all that much about the original story from the book. As a standalone film it is a fun little adventure film with good characters. Still, I've seen far worse adaptations.

Just saw this film for the first time in 10 years and I still really enjoyed it. The characters are funny, the actors are perfect for the roles they were given and the story, as often as it has been told, was well executed. The three musketeers is a story I have grown up with. I've seen and read pretty much every version out there, but this is still one of the most enjoyable versions. It is a film that you can enjoy at any time of the day. It is not a popcorn kind of film and you don't have to pay endless amounts of attention either. It is not a brain teaser. Just kick back and enjoy. You will not regret watching it if you are looking for a light hearted comedy with a pinch of drama.

Yes, there are liberties taken with the plot lines - the worst being Cardinal Richelieu thinking he could be King. But heyho Alan Rickman as Sheriff of Nottingham in Kev's 'Robin Hood' was trying it on the same, and had less chance than the Grey Eminence. Hollywood does take terrible liberties with European classics, just like Abe Lincoln, Vampire Slayer!!! The film is cheeky in tone, with plenty of swordfighting, derring do and love betrayed, but it does not quite shirk the state terror of executing Milady! The end is dragged out rather but the acting is pretty good and the storyline lollops along nicely. It is trying to emulate Dick Lester's version but comes up short against a really fine film that gets the balance of staying true to the book and getting plenty of laughs - remember Charlton Heston as Richelieu talking to Raquel Welch's husband played by Spike Milligan!!!!!!!!!! - Priceless. Enjoyable romp if you don't mind the changes to storyline and Tim Curry's overacting.

There are about 130+ reviews on this film and while I have not read every single one, I have read a handful. What I am about to say may have already been stated by someone else, but like I said, I have not read every single review. The reviews that I did happen to look through were quite critical of the film. The most popular critique was that it was not an accurate adaptation of Alexander Dumas' novel. I am hear to tell you that that's the point. This version of The Three Musketeers was never about being an accurate adaptation. While it highlights key components of the story and some history (like who the Musketeers were, etc) it was meant to focus more on (to quote Charlie Sheen on the Behind the Scenes on the DVD) "the camaraderie. the essence of brotherhood." I also noticed people complaining it's not a family film. Of course it's not. It's not just Disney it's also a Touchstone film. Yes, I know Disney (either owns or is merged with Touchstone. Something like that.) Either way, it doesn't have to be strictly the Disney we know.So if you're looking for a more accurate adaptation of the novel then this film is not for you. I would recommend one of the versions that was created before 1993. I think the one made sometime in the 40s is more accurate and I believe the one from the 70s may also be more accurate for certain people's tastes.