I watched the new film “The Three Musketeers: Milady” in the cinema. They got it all wrong

This week, Russian cinemas hosted the premiere of the continuation of the French historical drama about the adventures of Charlie D’Artagnan and his faithful friends – “The Three Musketeers: Milady”.

We have already gotten acquainted with the new product and are now ready to share our impressions.

The film managed to solve the problems of the first part, but in the process it acquired a number of new ones. Let’s look into it in detail.

There were a lot of questions for the scriptwriters

In the second half of the French film adaptation of the famous work of Alexandre Dumas “The Three Musketeers”, the screenwriters simply abandoned the original text of the novel, heading for creative freedom.

Unlike the first part, which, although it played with the plot, still retained some rigor to the source, the sequel appears to us as a mix of genres, where detective story is intertwined with political intrigue. The dramatic story of salvation turns into a love quest, the tragedy of betrayal unfolds into a full-fledged human drama.

What is the movie about: while D’Artagnan’s devoted companions, the three musketeers of the kings – Athos, Porthos and Aramis, lead the fighter at the front, the main character is faced with the need to cooperate with the mysterious Milady to save his beloved.

One of the most disorienting moments is the behavior of Milady de Winter, performed by the incomparable Eva Green. Almost from the first minutes of the film, her character behaves incomprehensibly and, to put it mildly, strange, especially in her interactions with D’Artagnan. Twice(!) in the first half hour Milady obsessively and, one might say, aggressively tried to seduce the main character, which raises not just surprise, but also a number of questions about the logic of the script.

Understand, we are, of course, happy to see Eva Green in a tight corset. It’s certainly nice, but trying to understand her character’s motivations at this point becomes a real puzzle. Maybe those who watched the film will be able to answer in the comments the question why this was all done?

These moments symbolize foreign films – the characters act the same way as their decisions are considered in a vacuum, divorced from any logic or consistency. The script looks like a motley mosaic, where each piece is colorful in itself, but together they form a picture, causing bewilderment rather than admiration.

Thus, the second part of The Three Musketeers: Milady becomes possible because the writers’ ambitions to reimagine the classics and with the reinvigoration of genres can lead to the creation of works that define the viewer in a state of constant questions: “What did I just watch?”

Despite the age of the cast and the visual appeal of the film, the story arc of Constance and her rescue, and the whole series of strange twists in the script, it takes its journey through a labyrinth of misunderstandings, where each turn raises more questions than answers.

The problem of camera work has been solved, but there is a nuance

In the first part of The Three Musketeers, we were indignant because of the constant shaking of the camera and its desire to shoot all the hottest action moments, as if from around the corner, using the “look from under the mouse” technique. In the sequel, cinematographer Nicolas Bolduc corrected himself. Victory? No. It’s just that the action was practically removed from the film.

It sounds strange, but even taking into account the frequent meetings of the protagonist with the main villainess, the showdown between the Huguenots and Protestants, There is simply no detective content in the film and no memorable action scenes!

There is only one large-scale night spy scene that raises more questions than admiration, and du paraels that are more reminiscent of unfinished disputes than full-fledged battles. This, to put it mildly, is too modest for such an epic.

In addition, the choreography and precise staging of the scares were simply not told to the cameraman, and during these variable moments of action the camera moves restlessly from one action to another, again turning into impressive moments in endless flickering.

But objectively speaking, there is criminally little action in the film. Therefore, we will not criticize the operator this time.

Moreover, the cinematographer gives unconditional credit for his work in capturing quiet scenes, landscapes and fly-by cameras. These moments are shot here with taste and arrangement.

Many of the shots literally scream to be delivered to your work computer. The selected plans include film depth, mystery and atmosphere.

Logic, common sense and portals

Of course, the action in the film is not the most important thing. Still, first and foremost, this is a historical drama. But from a story and drama standpoint, it’s pretty bad.

The movie does not look like a full-fledged complicated political detective story or a tragedy about love. The randomness of actions and the absolute inadequacy of the actions of the heroes for the title makes one doubt their psychological health.

Suddenly there seems to be a rethinking of the main villains of the film. Now she is a desperate woman who is trying to win her place in the sun and survive in a world dictated by men. At least that’s what she said in one scene. In other words, the classic demonic entity character we got looks more down to earth here.

To some extent, he even tries to make the heroine a victim, but, despite all the efforts of Eva Green, it is not possible to convey this cunning and sacrifice. The script doesn’t do justice to her character or her talent.

But Constance’s story arc is much more unexpected. Believe me, you are surprised. Twist, why is it simple? it’s impossible to be prepared.

There is no doubt that the film looks effortless, there is no slack here. There is constant movement in the frame, all the heroic ones are going somewhere, in all sorts of affairs, everyone is constantly solving some personal problems or the affairs of France. The siege of La Rochelle, the difficult past of Athos and the despair of D’Artagnan – the new scene cannot be a continuation of the previous one. Simply because there is a tangle of different stories here, the writers tried to combine them into a single canvas.

However, there is one weak point where questions arise. Characters with unique abilities instantly finds itself in the right place with no sign of travel. Long journeys to France, exciting chases and unexpected events, similar to those deleted from the script. One moment the hero is in the courtyard, the next he is already at the front, and then suddenly an evening dinner is planned with the Duke of Buckingham. Much of the character movement occurs outside of the viewer’s field of view.

On the one hand, this material keeps the length of the film within reasonable limits, since the film is already two hours long. On the other hand, it makes it seem as if there are secret portals in the world of the film that we simply weren’t told existed.

Bottom line: you may or may not watch it.

The new part of The Three Musketeers maintains the level of its predecessor. It is exciting, well-edited and filled with intrigue, betrayal and adventures of our favorite characters.

This is a special reimagining of the classic by Alexandre Dumas, where familiar characters and situations receive a completely new development. Does she attract attention? Do. Does it hold interest throughout the entire viewing? With variable income. Does it leave a pleasant aftertaste or something to think about after watching? No.

there are many questions for the screenwriter and the final (and most likely not) scene in the story Only.