I saw The Three Musketeers: D’Artagnan at the cinema. Is he better than the Soviet legend with Boyarsky?

In Russian cinemas, the release of the long-awaited film “The Three Musketeers: D’Artagnan” has started.

Painting the famous story of Alexandre Dumas about the young Charles D’Artagnan from Gascony. We are talking, of course, about the famous Three Musketeers.

We already went to see it in a cinema, comparable to a book, and at the same time to the classics of Soviet cinema. We share our impressions and tell if the French filmmakers managed not to spoil the great work of the great work.

History based. Both good and bad

Let’s start with the main thing – this is not a screen adaptation. Some will sigh with sadness, some with relief. On the one hand, due to the departure from the classical volume of the novel, the cinema turned out without pauses and sagging in favor of modern spectacles. On the other hand, the plot moves very quickly.

What is the movie about: from the Louvre to Buckingham Palace, from the slums of Paris to the siege of La Rochelle… In a kingdom divided by religious wars and the guarantee of a British invasion, famed musketeers will cross swords, ready to give their lives for the greatness of France.

The film is 2 hours long, and the second part, which is expected at the end of this year, will obviously be no less. But you don’t get a feel for the production of Paris at the beginning of the 16th century, you don’t get stocks of details, mores and way of life of that time. The director does not give the viewer the opportunity to pick up a detailed world around the main storylines.

Despite the fact that the beautiful background, costumes, scenery, the streets of Paris – everything looks very believable and without embellishment. Almost like in a book. No stupid colored capes or clean suits. Realism at its best. But all this remains a blurry background.

The only occasional story operator focuses on non-moving characters or events. For example, d’Artagnan’s acquaintance with the educational institution of the royal musketeers is filmed with sincere love for sophistication. I wish there were more moments like this in the movie.

However, the cameraman and director have their own image.

The growth of the operator is the main issue of the film

Filmed well. Cinematographer Nicolas Bolduc knows exactly how to shoot action in a beautiful and Hollywood way. The modern viewer loves long action scenes without cuts. Duels should explore themselves ugly attacks with swords, a fight not for life, but for death.

But! Nicolas shot most of the film from a height “just below the head.” And this spoils everything. Chic action filed with the maximum effect of presence. You believe in the norm. You are at the epicenter of events. But your height 160 cm. Of course, you can get used to such a presentation of material. But for what? Why did Nicolas choose this particular shooting height, which belongs to a mystery. This slightly worsens the impression of perception on the screen. You get tired of this angle.

I couldn’t find any explanation why this was done. You have a fairly binding budget. You seem to have natural luxurious jewelry. They do not need an angle that hides some imperfections or unnaturalness. It’s a shame.

As a result, you understand that a few fight scenes are shot cool. The choreography and ideas for dealing with enemies are spectacular. But what about the angle? Get shorty’s camera!

Nevertheless, I note that the operator still coped with the task of “making a spectacular and memorable movie.” So, for example, it is precisely the manner of shooting chosen by the operator that several scenes in the game very accurately convey tension and feelings appear.

We have known the story for many years. But the developers decided to take a different path.

For example, D’Artagnan is buried 5 minutes after the opening credits. How do you like this turn? This not a spoiler. This is the fact that drives the plot. Or Milady, who is suicidal. And it’s not a spoiler either. This is stupidity, forcing to make a familiar manual face.

On the one hand, we got a new reading of the great classics, a discovered component, adventures that you kind of know, but kind of don’t. On the other hand, the director has prepared a couple of scenes that will leave you at a loss.

It was as if at some point the filming team got together and in the process of discussion, it was filmed that came to the conclusion that it was too good a movie. And it needs to be messed up somehow. For what? Ask the 160 cm operator. Maybe he knows the answer. Well, you understand.

In general, there is a lot of emphasis in history on the protests of Protestants and Catholics. English and French. This not a story about d’Artagnanand the history of France. Conspiracies, unexpected moves, energetic agendas – this is not to be dealt with in business.

Movie done enough gloomy, only temporarily relaxing, watch the biting dialogues between the plots, especially between the musketeers. Nice and interesting to listen to.

Cast – 100% hit, except for one

Of course, it is impossible to watch the trailer for the film and not catch “boyar” flash drives when Vincent Cassel is on the monitor screen. Just an amazing resemblance to the famous Soviet actor! At the same time, Kassel was perfect for the role of Athos. This is an unexpected twist. Kassel in the image of the aged Boyarsky is a real Athos. Live with it now.

As for the rest of the cast, no questions. Everything is in its place. Great casting. I especially liked Aramis performed by Romain Duris. Memorable image and excellent acting.

However getting used to D’Artagnan will be expected.

Here is how Alexandre Dumas himself wrote down the main character:

Elongated swarthy face; prominent cheekbones – a sign of cunning; the jaw muscles are developed – an integral feature, by the presence one can immediately determine the Gascon, even if he does not have a beret – and the young man was in a beret, decorated with a semblance of a feather; look open and smart; the nose is hooked, but finely defined.

We look at the photo of the actor Francois Civil, who played the young D’Artagnan, and we understand that his appearance has little to do with the description of the work. Did true Gascons disappear in France?

Should this be considered a bad movie? Don’t think. But the feeling that one could try to find a more suitable actor will not cause interest in the duration of watching everything. Just like I thought it could have been a little better. And so, of course, worthy of watching a movie, but it could have been better.

For example, the way the film was closed. It is clear that it is impossible to keep within 2 hours of timing. It is clear that we are waiting for a sequel. But stop the movie 2 minutes early, and it will be a logical conclusion, allowing you to wait for the continuation, as the characters wait for a meeting with another friend.

But in the editing room it was decided that a little more had to be shown, which in the end was presented to the feeling of incompleteness of what had happened. the feeling and overall impression that is felt throughout the film could have been a little bit better.

But overall it’s still good. I can safely recommend this movie, including to fans of Soviet classics. Kassel, of course, will not sing, but we still heard the sad story about the count’s park and lilies. Why not go to the movies?