Loading...

Plot:

It’s 1649: Mazarin hires the impoverished D’Artagnan to find the other musketeers: Cromwell has overthrown the English king, so Mazarin fears revolt, particularly from the popular Beaufort. Porthos, bored with riches and wanting a title, signs on, but Aramis, an abbé, and Athos, a brawler raising an intellectual son, assist Beaufort in secret. When they fail to halt Beaufort’s escape from prison, the musketeers are expendable, and Mazarin sends them to London to rescue Charles I. They are also pursued by Justine, the avenging daughter of Milady de Winter, their enemy 20 years ago. They must escape England, avoid Justine, serve the Queen, and secure Beauford’s political reforms.

Also Known As: Повернення мушкетерiв, Возвращение мушкетеров Soviet, Oi treis somatofylakes epistrefoun, A testőrök visszatérnek, Il ritorno dei tre moschettieri, Die Rückkehr der Musketiere, Povratak musketara, El regreso de los mosqueteros, Oi 3 somatofylakes epistrefoun, A Volta dos Mosqueteiros, Οι τρεις σωματοφύλακες επιστρέφουν, Powrót muszkieterów, Le retour des mousquetaires, Завръщането на тримата мускетари, The Return of the Musketeers, Reintoarcerea muschetarilor, Întoarcerea muschetarilor, O Regresso dos Três Mosqueteiros

Leave a Reply

No Comments

  • dr-tutkucan-canseven-kisakurek
    dr tutkucan canseven kisakurek

    Much like “Twilight Zone: The Movie”, this film is perhaps best known for the tragic death of a well known actor during filming. In that case, it was Vic Morrow. In this case, it was the always brilliant, irrepressible and irreplaceable British character actor Roy Kinnear, who broke his pelvis after being thrown off his horse and died of a heart attack as a result. Richard Chamberlain was so angry about the producers’ lack of reaction to his death that he quit the film. Richard Lester, who had cast Kinnear in numerous films before this one, was so upset by his death that he retired from filmmaking. “Superman II” was really Richard Donner’s baby and “Superman III” wasn’t very good – I don’t think that Lester really got Superman – but I loved the “Musketeers” trilogy and “Robin and Marian”. Lester’s retirement, while certainly understandable, robbed the cinema of a very talented and underrated director.It’s obviously very trivial in the scheme of things but his death had a significant impact on the film as his character Planchet disappears after the first 45 minutes, with the exceptions of two brief scenes with Kinnear and two others with a stand-in. Chamberlain’s departure relegated Aramis to making little more than a glorified cameo. He disappears after the first half an hour and only returns in the last ten minutes of the film with no explanation for his return in the form of the usual “I changed my mind” scene in such circumstances. Prior to Kinnear’s death, I imagine that the plan was for Planchet to accompany D’Artagnan, Athos and Porthos to England, where Aramis would have reunited with them.Leaving the real life tragedy aside for a moment, this is a hugely enjoyable film. It perfectly recaptures the sense of fun and good old fashioned swashbuckling adventure that was present throughout the first two films, in spite of the fact that 15 years had passed. The exploration of growing older is subtle and understated but it’s definitely there, which I appreciated. The film also has a great cast. Kinnear, Chamberlain, Christopher Lee, Oliver Reed, Michael York, Frank Finlay and Geraldine Chaplin all reprise their roles from the first two films and are joined by Kim Cattrall, Philippe Noiret, Alan Howard and Bill Paterson (admittedly in a very small role as Charles I). C. Thomas Howell is the only weak link acting wise. Of the newcomers, Kim Cattrall, whose work I always enjoy, was the best as Justine de Winter with Noiret as Cardinal Mazarin in a close second. Jean-Pierre Cassel, who played the by now dead Louis XIII in the original films, has a lovely cameo as Cyrano de Bergerac. Another nice tribute to the earlier films is the fact that the portrait of Cardinal Richelieu, which isn’t even seen in a close-up, has Charlton Heston’s face. Christopher Lee is my favourite actor but I wish that he hadn’t been brought back as, aside from the fact that Rochefort was impaled through the heart in “The Four Musketeers” and was clearly implied to have been killed, his role is rather small and he doesn’t really contribute anything to the proceedings. Lee was wasted, frankly.

  • vargane-dr-szabo-gyongyi
    vargane dr szabo gyongyi

    I am sure I will be shot down in flames but I believe that this third one was cobbled together with shots left over from the first two and some newly reshot material with the original stars, hence the narrative passages and the chaotic and muddled storyline. I just adored the first two and could not believe how much I was disappointed with this one. I understand that the stars had disputed the release of the second movie as they believed they were only making one movie and they were stiffed on payment for it. At the time of the original releases the treatment of the dialogue and action scenes were pure genius and truly innovative. I still remember the hairs standing up on the back of my neck at the first film’s opening credit’s swordplay. The third movie deserved more time spent on it and a lot more new material. It was such a great shame that Roy Kinnear had to lose his life completing a shot that a double would normally do. He was an important part of the first two movies. Richard Lester has always been an original and idiosyncratic director, much underrated in my opinion.

  • pusspaa-mnddl
    pusspaa mnddl

    In the early 70’s many of the same actors made one excellent and a second really good but not quite excellent fun action film based on Dumas’ classic stories with a small amount of fairly inaccurate history thrown in. By this film history is completely gone as is any relation to Dumas’ book other than the characters. This film is based on the concept of aging musketeers. It is a funny concept, but just doesn’t carry a film. The same gag, guys who can’t do it anymore, gets old pretty quickly, and it then it just isn’t fun to watch. There is a reliance on things like dwarfs being funny to look at, and elaborately silly hidden panels and such, funny costumes, and Mel Brook-ish humour and funny accents in very poor rhythm with the plot line. The move between gags and the plot is just plain jarring. It is intended as a parody of the first two films–a lovely idea in concept–but it would work as a 15 minute skit, not a feature.Part of why it worked was the quality of the stars with the three central characters (not in order of billing) (of the film) D’Artagnon, Cardinal Richelieu, and Lady De Winter being played by Michael York, Charleton Heston and Faye Dunaway. Chareleton Heston and Fay Dunaway do not return to this film and they are very missed. Kim Catrell plays the Faye Dunaway role (as her daughter) and lovely though she is, she just is not close to the actress that Dunaway was. Dunaway managed to be really be scary and sexy (Think Vagina Dentata as a surprise to a lover kind of feeling). And Heston, crazy gun coot that he was then, was pretty scary in a fun way too. The actor in his role just is not very convincingly malevolent. Also missing from this cast is Raquel Welch, playing the dumb, funny gorgeous sexpot (against Dunaway’s scary, super-intelligent sociopathic sexpot).Given the quality of the original two films, and how mediocre the script for this is, I am surprised the rest of the major players returned: Christopher Lee (great in all), Oliver Reed (playing a drunk–big surprise), Geraldine Chaplin (her role is larger and Much more poorly written–she is not a comedienne), and Richard Chamberlain. All wonderful actors but poorly used in this film.There is a young love interest couple: OK I’ve mentioned it exists.Finally, Michael York was rivetingly sexy in the first two films. In 1974 he was 32 and played an 18 year old quite convincingly. In 1989 he was 47 playing a 47 year old who appeared to be 30. He was still fun to watch, but I think he kind of dumbed-down his physical grace, where as the other musketeer actors clearly couldn’t run (ya know in real life) couldn’t run more than four or five steps. Oliver Reed and Richard Chamberlin did still sizzle a bit in 1974 but by 1989–nada in the sexy pants division for these two. Like Chaplain, comedy is not their forte. This has no credible dramatic elements. They are not enjoyable to look at, so it doesn’t leave lots for them to add.Oh yeah, don’t confuse this with the Disney Three Muskateers film made in the 90’s. It is almost unwatchable.–I noticed from someone else’s review that an actor known in the UK for physical comedy actually was killed doing a horse stunt, and that partly accounts for folks in the UK likely this film more than folks in the US. It always seems awful when you read someone dies making a film doing a stunt. It is especially dreadful when the film comes out to be mediocre like this one.I gave this a five, meaning fair. An unfortunate thing about this site is that if you actually watch a film, you rarely really hate the film–at least if you are watching it on video. So my evaluation of 5 really does mean fair, but a film that has an average of 5 on this site is generally truly rotten.

  • dag-magnus-myklebust
    dag magnus myklebust

    I liked this movie (as well as the first two) alot. I remember reading a blurb in TIME back in ’89 that the movie had just been completed and eagerly awaited its release to see it on the big screen. Unfortunately the movie never made it to the theaters here (and I don’t know if it did overseas, for that matter), but premiered on USA cable network in late March of 1991. As I watched it on a small hotel TV I saw a lot of great acting, and production, much like the first two films. All the actors appeared to like being back into probably there best roles. The movie comes across with a great deal of heart (and I had to chuckle at) as the characters frequently remark they’re getting to old for the physical thrashing about. To sum up: very good and I’ll give it a solid “B”.

  • vira-laba
    vira laba

    Having greatly enjoyed Richard Lester’s first two “Musketeer” movies, I was looking forward to seeing this one when it was finally released. Alas, the magic did not work the third time. The villainess, despite her glaring eyes and malevolent hamming, is no worthy successor to Faye Dunaway’s Milady de Winter. The four heroes have aged embarrassingly in the intervening years, and nobody seems to have their heart in this film. I know Oliver Reed’s Athos is supposed to be a melancholy man, but in this film he seems continually on the verge of breaking into tears; Richard Chamberlain is too old to play the wastrelly ladies’ man/religious as he did so enjoyably in the earlier movies, and Michael York seems to be in a perpetual pout. Only Frank Findlay, as Porthos, seems to be comfortable with himself, playing a bored, overgrown kid happy to break out of the rich man’s rut he’s fallen into and try adventuring again.The first two films did not make a point of period re-creation, but this film is peppered with annoying anachronisms throughout. The female lead is far too 20th-century to fit into this story, and not because she is a clever assassin – Milady was all that and was believable as a 17th century character. This one dresses as a man, then asks for something “a bit more feminine” to dress up in so she can captivate the young Louis XIV. And that brat is straight out of the wisecracking kid movies we are all so wretchedly familiar with today. The freakish use of dwarfs, which worked so well in the first movie, just falls flat here, and comes across as completely implausible. That, unfortunately, is the impression the whole movie tends to leave.

  • rachel-sutton
    rachel sutton

    The movie “The Revenge of the Musketeers” was a pleasant surprise since I had read the book,”Twenty Years After” by Dumas. At the end of the first book,”The Three Musketeers,” D’Artagnan attained more than he had imagined, a commission as a Lieutenant in the King’s Musketeers. The next book in the series,”Twenty Years After,” started with our hero still only a lowly, impoverished Lieutenant after a full twenty years of service. The beauty of the film “The Revenge of the Musketeers” is in keeping the spirit of the first two movies, staying close to the original books by Dumas(instead of the kiddie version),the third movie was made with the original actors almost Twenty Years After the first was produced! I for one cannot think of another example of Hollywood staying so true to such a concept. The plot can be depressing compared to the youthful glory of the original. This, again is keeping true to the story. More a lesson in the whimsy of Royalty (government or any power structure)and how men are used to further their interests.

  • michelle-fry
    michelle fry

    The third installment in the Lester saga ,the fourth (“Le Vicomte De BRagelonne” feat. the iron mask) was never filmed ,because this one was not very commercially successful.Roughly based on “Vingt Ans Après” ,”the return” was made sixteen years later ,with the same actors (Faye Dunaway ,Raquel Welch and Charlton Heston are not present ,their characters being all dead).Also Louis the Thirteenth is dead,Jean-Pierre Cassel who played his role,returns as Cyrano De Bergerac who comes at the most awkward moment.The historical background is thin,although dealing with “La Fronde” ,a noble rebellion,and Mazarin’s struggle to maintain the absolute monarchy ;and in spite of the musketeers,he was successful ,for the Sun King’s reign only began with his death in 1661 ,when he was already 23.Unlike in the book,it’s a daughter (Justine De Winter) and not a son who wants to avenge her mother Milady.It’s first surprising but becomes repetitive in the long run.It lacks some imagination:why not an affair with Raoul for instance?The first movie of the saga remains the most successful:in this one,time has taken its toll,and what could have been another magnificent “Robin and Marion” ,a journey through the past tinged with nostalgia ,remains here a moderately entertaining swashbuckler.

  • jose-luis-alfonso-casas-suarez
    jose luis alfonso casas suarez

    THE RETURN OF THE MUSKETEERS is the third and final part of the THREE MUSKETEERS trilogy directed by Richard Lester. The first two films were made around 15 years before this one, and there’s a noticeable dip in quality which means that this is an easy film to leave out if you’re planning to enjoy the movies. It’s not really a good film at all, blighted by the death of Roy Kinnear after an accident during film. Me, I only watched it because I’m a Christopher Lee completist.The story sees the musketeers scattered to the wind and aged in the intervening years. Eventually they do get back together to take a trip to England to rescue the king, but time has not been kind to some of the stars. I’m thinking particularly of Oliver Reed, who is literally larger than life now and doubled in the fight scenes as much as Seagal in one of his straight-to-DVD thrillers. The best part of the film is the hilarious opening scene in which Kinnear tries to get his lunch, but it’s all downhill from there.Kim Cattrall is a poor shoe-in for villainess although Christopher Lee is a reliable villain as always. Richard Chamberlain quit the production after Kinnear’s death and thus is oddly absent for large parts of the running time. Only Michael York seems to be making the effort and his charisma comes through. Otherwise THE RETURN OF THE MUSKETEERS is an insipid film that relies too much on broad laughs and the ham-fisted scripting means that it’s merely a weak imitation of what has come before.

  • bayan-sirap-yildiz-aksu-hancer
    bayan sirap yildiz aksu hancer

    A great hoax circulates about this movie. Unfortunately, we are at a time when there are no principles and the websites copy here and there, without more, without citing provenance, including the supposedly serious ones. And so repeated ends up looking true. On September 18, 1988, during the filming in Toledo, at the great Puente de Alcántara, the actor Roy Kinnear fell from his saddle. He was taken to the hospital in Toledo and was diagnosed with a partial pelvic fracture. Not having a serious prognosis, he was transferred that afternoon to the Ruber clinic in Madrid. The next day, when he was hospitalized, he had a heart attack and died. It is said that Richard Chamberlain, angered by the event, left the shooting. This rumor was fueled by the fact of his brief role in the film. Well, … IT IS COMPLETELY FALSE. Chamberlain had gladly accepted to participate in the film, but on condition that his already signed commitments were respected. It was filming a few days, until Friday, September 3 in San Lorenzo de El Escorial (nearby Madrid). On September 4, 15 days before the unfortunate event, he set course for Los Angeles. This is reflected in the chronicle of diary La Vanguardia of September 4, 1988.

  • milka-prelec
    milka prelec

    With a script and story just as good as the original films in the series, The Return of the Musketeers is only let down by the cheap humour made at the expense of the physical inabilities of the now aged musketeers.However, even this is done so that you cannot help laughing at it, and so leaves us with a little comic jewel of a film.In the UK this film has remained quite high profile as it marked the death of Roy Kinnear, one of Britain’s best and most beloved comic character actors of all time, who died while falling off his horse during the filming of one of the horse-riding scenes, and his families pursuit of compensation.Kinnear’s death does leave the rest of the cast visibly downcast on screen and brings down the end of the movie with an over all somber mood as Kinnear’s scenes are filled with a mixture of doubles and audio dubbing.However, this is still a very funny movie which is ideal for a late night of non-thinking entertainment.

  • gal-mlakar
    gal mlakar

    Watching “Return Of The Musketeers” is a depressing affair. First off, Roy Kinner (As Planchet, D’Artangnan’s loyal sidekick)died while doing a riding stunt (At least they dedicated the film to him). Second, the film just doesn’t capture the glory days of the 2 previous films. Maybe that’s the point: you can’t go home again. D’Artangnan (Michael York, one of the reasons to try to stick with it.)is still a Musketeer (Although an impoverished one)and is recruited to try to find the remaining Musketeers for one last “All For One, and One for All.” This is where the film starts to fall apart. First of all, Richard Chamberlain (As Aramis)is not in the film all that much, the late Oliver Reed (As Athos)looks like he doesn’t want to be there, and Frank Finlay (As Porthos)seems to be along for the ride. Second, there is some serious miscasting in the likes of C. Thomas Howell as Raoul, Athos’ son. He shouldn’t be in this film, because he just seems to drag it down. As does Kim Cattrall as Justine de Winter, the daughter of the late Milady (We miss you, Faye Dunaway!)out for revenge. Stick to the first 2 instead and totally forget this disaster.

  • cathy-willis
    cathy willis

    I’m afraid that, given the success of Lester’s ‘The Three Musketeers’ and ‘The Four Musketeers’ with the same cast, I found this film a sore disappointment; more of a disappointment, perhaps, than if I’d hoped for less. There was only one moment when the film carried any serious depth for me, and that was in the confrontation between Aramis and D’Artagnan; although completely without basis in the book, that was the only episode that carried any hint of the bitterness of genuine feeling between the four reflected in the torn loyalties of the original.As for the rest, it was played for parody, pure and simple. It might as well have been entitled “Return of the Son of the Bride of the Musketeers from 20,000 Fathoms”, given its grievous case of ‘sequel-itis’.Rochefort is gratuitously re-introduced, despite the fact that he performs no plot function at all and trails around like a mangy dog, to be pitied even by Oliver Cromwell. We have the introduction into the story of a Milady Mark II, played as a pantomime Principal Boy in contrast to the all-too-feminine menace of her predecessor, who achieves the surprisi g feat of warding off ungallant attacks of four against one without inadvertently enlisting our sympathies as the underdog. We have overlong, over-slapstick fight scenes, epitomised perhaps by the opening sequence, where even Roy Kinnear’s sad death during subsequent filming cannot excuse the tedium of his character’s would-be comic antics. We have Oliver Reed miscast as ever as a brawling, bibulous Athos, requiring an unbelievably tasteless rewrite of the famous scene beneath the scaffold for attempted humorous effect(!) We have Athos’ wet son Raoul brought in to make up the numbers in a nod at romantic interest — unfortunately he’s such a nonentity it’s hard to care.All the faults of the previous productions have been retained, writ large, while all of their charm has somehow been utterly mislaid. This isn’t just an unsuccessful try at a sequel: in a way, I could have forgiven that. At times, alas, the film is little short of a travesty.If you loved the originals — this is one of the cases where I’d actively advise against watching the reprise, for the sake of sparing the embarrassment of the actors involved, if for nothing else. Watch the French-made “D’Artagnan’s Daughter”(1994) for next-generation comedy; or, if you want to see Michael York play an aging D’Artagnan with genuine boisterous charm, try the harmless bit of fluff that was the ‘mini-series’ “La Femme Musketeer” of 2004.

  • gustavo-araujo
    gustavo araujo

    Lester’s musketeer films were some of the first films I ever saw in the movie theatre, and I was entranced. Disappointingly I also saw “The Fifth Musketeer” with a different set of actors, and a different production team. Fast forward ten to fifteen years after that, and I’m channel surfing one evening when I come across some kind of period piece that happens to looks like a musketeer film on WTBS.And it is. Complete with Michael York and gang to reprise their roles.Huh? Wha-? “Return of the Musketeers”? How is it that I never heard of this movie? Particularly when it came out a few years before airing on Ted Turner’s Superstation?Unfortunately I only caught the final twenty minutes or so, but I knew WTBS would reair it at some point, or it’d be available on VHS somewhere. Right? Nope.Just like the book upon which the film was based I had to wait twenty years to get a DVD of this film, and from where? France. Fitting, if somewhat ironic given the production team. As part of a three film set I had to repurchase the original 1970’s films, but at least I finally have the full set of Richard Lester’s renaissance tales.But, to the film. I like it. It’s not quite as extraordinary as the first two films, but it does manage to recapture some of the atmosphere set by the previous two films. We see the decadence of the privileged aristocracy, but we don’t quite see the visual juxtaposition of what was filth ridden Europe at that point in history.I have to admit that the film feels somewhat cobbled together, but I enjoyed it all the same. As you probably already know comedic actor Roy Kinnear’s life was tragically cut short working on this production, and the film is appropriately dedicated to him.I guess the one thing that really stands out in this film is the fact that it’s a relatively low budget affair. When the first musketeer films were shot the film makers had the advantage of shooting under Franco’s Spain, making the production a cheap affair for en epic scale production. I guess when democracy spreads the wealth it also spreads the demand for wealth, making things more expensive, therefore reducing the scale of the action and truncating any large battle scenes. You can tell that in spite of this being an expensive production that the money just wasn’t there to do proper Richard Lester justice for this third installment of the musketeer movies.All in all I enjoyed it. As I say the production values aren’t quite there. Noticeably the one real critique that I had with the second film “The Four Musketeers” was the fact that Michael Legrand’s adventurous score was absent. So it is with this film. Which is a shame, because an adventurous film needs an adventurous score. Oh well.Like I say, it’s not the best film in the series, but I’m glad to finally have it in my collection, albeit on Region 2 DVD. Give it a chance if you’re new. If you remember the 70’s musketeer films, then give this one a spin for a small bit of remembrance.

  • timothy-oliver-woods
    timothy oliver woods

    Well, I see that the reviews for this are all over the place. Some people praising it, others panning it, and no discernible clever-stupid divide (unlike some films on here, where all the reviews of one opinion are full of spelling mistakes and bad punctuation and grammar, and the other side has all the intelligently written stuff).So here’s my two penn’oth on this film. Firstly – for the people who say it’s not as good as the originals, of course it isn’t. But that doesn’t mean it’s no good at all. Far from it. It’s still the same crew, and the same, definitive, cast – apart from the characters who aren’t with us anymore – although Jean-Pierre Cassel does make a cameo appearance as Cyrano de Bergerac!One thing that nobody else has done on here is compare it to the book. If you look at the reviews for the Three and the Four Musketeers, everybody is falling over themselves to say how closely they stick to the book. This film, on the other hand, does make some big changes to the book “Twenty Years After” on which it is based – possible spoiler alert here, decide for yourself.Firstly – and most significantly, in the book, the chief villain, Mordaunt, is Milady de Winter’s SON. In here, we have her daughter Justine, who as somebody else said, does seem a bit more 20th century than the original, Faye Dunnaway (sp?). Secondly, in the book, Athos’ son Raoul was mentioned, and had a very small part – but did not have any influence on the events in the story. His appearance served as an introduction to him in readiness for the Vicomte De Bragelonne trilogy. In the film, his part is built up – enabling him to have a minor romance with Justine (how predictable is that!).Also, moreover, in the film, Aramis walks out on the others after they discover they were on opposite sides. This doesn’t happen in the book – although I did hear somewhere on here that Richard Chamberlain expressed a lack of interest in this film, possibly after Roy Kinnear was killed. So they probably had to rewrite the script to incorporate it. And they didn’t quite cover everything – (spoiler ahead) when Rochefort tells Justine the names of the Musketeers, he starts with Aramis, and she acts like she recognises the name. And yet, Mazarin only gives her the names of D’Artagnan, Porthos and Athos. Woops!Oh yes – that’s another thing. In the film, Justine is Rochefort’s child, but that was an necessary consequence of the economies made in the original films. But yes – Aramis is away for large chunks of the film, which is probably what caused Raoul’s part to be increased.So – this film is based on the book, but doesn’t stick rigidly to it. But in this case, it’s not entirely a bad thing. I have read the entire Musketeers saga: The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years After, The Vicomte De Bragelonne, Louise De La Valliere and The Man In The Iron Mask – and let me tell you, not one of those sequels has anything like the same oomph as the original book. Under the circumstances, I think that all concerned did a very good job. 7/10 for effort – no, 8/10. It is the definitive cast, after all!

  • isabelle-de-strigter
    isabelle de strigter

    This film, without having read the book, might be seen as a pleasant and enjoyable film full of comedy. Firstly, I did not laugh during all the film. Secondly, I read the book. Whilst the previous films remained relatively faithful to the book, this one differs totally from the book. My favorite character has always been Athos, who was the bravest, and the most intelligent of the musketeers. In the book, he had become a respectable gentleman. When the musketeers began to fight against each other, Athos gave a wonderful speech about friendship. In the film, Athos is just a alcoholic fool who barely retains his prestige. Aramis does not even come back till the end. This film ruined Athos’s character. The film should have spent more time on Charles I’s execution and how the musketeers fight to save him because we also see a pathetic attempt whereas in the book, they really tried and almost succeeded in saving Charles Ist. I miss Mordaunt so much. He was scary and much more villainous than Justine de Winter. I do not know why the producer felt the need to change the gender of Milady’s descendant but if it was just to add a romance between Raoul and Justine, it was ridiculous. We do not see very much Raoul in the book but he seems a nice and intelligent guy. In the film, he was just a fool. The film, instead of adapting Alexandre Dumas’s wonderful book, just ruins it. This is really a shame as I appreciated the two films done before.

  • amiran-buch-ukuri
    amiran buch ukuri

    Return of The Musketeers is not a bad film as such. However, unfortunately it isn’t particularly anything to rave about either. The film does have its good points, such as the beautiful production values, some witty jokes about the ravages of time and a good cast Oliver Reed and Christopher Lee being the standouts. However, it lacks the energy and sparkle that was evident in The Three Musketeers and The Four Musketeers. The pace is rather languid this time round and the action is clumsy. Richard Lester apparently was ill during production and sadly any enthusiasm that made the previous entries so enjoyable isn’t here. I am well aware of Roy Kinnear’s tragic death, and I was very saddened, but if this was an attempt of “the show must go on”, it doesn’t come through. I also thought the script was disjointed, the ravages of time jokes aside, and the story while a great idea lacking. Also Thomas C. Howell is very out of place as Athos’s son Raoul, who was an unnecessary presence anyway. All in all, has its moments but disappointing and while not the worst sequel of all time it is one that goes too far. 4/10 Bethany Cox

  • tricia-thornton
    tricia thornton

    French politics always have been a mess. The backdrop of “La Fronde” as the French civil war was known, is difficult to explain. There were no good or bad guys. The country was thrown into confusion and disarray.The challenge of adapting the second Dumas novel (as well as the third) is that there is no clear cut plot element to hang your hat on. Unlike the race to get the jewels back from the first novel, “Twenty Years Later” is rather episodic and dis-jointed. the musketeers are no longer musketeers and (in the novel) they are not even on the same side of the political fence.The movie tries. There is an attempt at the levity of the previous two films. The screenwriters attempt to throw in a weird romance between Athos’ son Raoul and Lady De Winter’s daughter (an evil son in the book). The writers also keep many of the major set pieces from the book (the fire ship plot against the heroes, the execution of Charles I, the escape of the prince of Condé, etc.) but in the end the film has no spirit.Everyone involved must have dearly wanted to recapture the magic of the first two films. Lester was working under pressure on a television schedule and budget.In his autobiography Michael York describes how he looked forward to the first day of shooting. The whole thing turned sour when Roy Kinnear had a tragic (and York believes, an unnecessary) accident. Kinnear was asked to ride his horse across a bridge in a long shot and tried to oblige. He fell and was rushed to the hospital where he later passed away. York feels the producers treated Kinnear and his family shabbily.Any joy the actors may have had going in to the project evaporated after that.

  • mallory-le
    mallory le

    Richard Lester attempts to recreate the magic of his ’70s “Musketeer” films, and for the most part he succeeds, but “The Return of the Musketeers” is a bit too episodic at times and occasionally feels rushed, particularly at the end. It’s fun to see the foursome back together again, though, and Jean-Pierre Cassel (who played Louis XIII in the earlier films) has a nice turn as a delusional Cyrano de Bergerac. Too bad this turned out to be Lester’s last film (not counting the Paul McCartney concert film “Get Back”).

  • beatriz-carolina-ortega-riquelme
    beatriz carolina ortega riquelme

    To be honest, though I have not watched them in ages, I am not quite as much a fan of Richard Lester’s revisionist version(s) of Alexandre Dumas’ swashbuckling saga as I would like (being more partial to the 1948 version which is the one I grew up with); with this in mind, I did not actively seek out to catch up with the belated third entry, neither when it opened in local theaters nor on its sporadic Italian TV appearances! That said, having purchased Anchor Bay’s SE DVD set of the 1973/4 adaptations regardless, I also made it a point to finally acquire the film under review…and, though I have been wanting to check it out for the longest time, only got to it now jointly in tribute to James Whale (by way of his definitive 1939 version of THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK) and as part of my current Easter epic marathon! To cut a long story short, I quite enjoyed the film (though the comedy is still very much frenzied and hit-and-miss in the traditional Lester style) – which had been thoroughly ignored at the time, another reason I was in no special hurry to watch it. Of course, Lester re-acquired the services of most of the principals save, obviously, for the ones who had expired or been replaced (Faye Dunaway and Charlton Heston respectively: amusingly, when the latter wished there was some way to bring Cardinal Richelieu back, the director obliged by having a portrait of him in character hung up in his replacement Mazarin’s office throughout the film and which he later donated to the actor!). Still, Jean-Pierre Cassel exchanges roles from the French royal to that of nasally-deformed poet/buffoon Cyrano De Bergerac; incidentally, he had previously ‘met’ this other popular literary figure – reincarnated by Jose’ Ferrer after his 1950 Oscar win! – when himself playing the Musketeer D’Artagnan in an obscure but worthwhile 1963 film by Abel Gance! The new recruits, however, also proved surprisingly effective: Philip Noiret as Cardinal Mazarin, Prime Minister and Regent in lieu of the child King Louis XIV (though his openly carrying on a relationship with Geraldine Chaplin’s Queen Mother is rather in poor taste!); C. Thomas Howell as the adopted son of Oliver Reed’s Athos (the sole link to Dumas’ “Le Vicomte De Bragellone” aka “The Man In The Iron Mask” – whereas the rest is an adaptation of “Twenty Years After”, already solidly brought to the screen in 1952 as AT SWORD’S POINT); and Kim Cattrall as the true villainess of the piece (inevitably, we had to have one here as well), memorably introduced as an axe-wielding monk(!) catching up with the executioner who had beheaded her mother, Milady De Winter – born out of the latter’s relationship with Rochefort (played once again by Christopher Lee, despite his vociferous protests over the years of having been paid for the previous outings on a two-films-for-the-price-of-one basis!) and whom she detests and humiliates for having abandoned her.The plot finds Michael York’s D’Artagnan still struggling for a court position, Oliver Reed’s Athos typically raising hell under the influence (as befits the actor who passed away in Malta 10 years later during the filming of GLADIATOR {2000} following yet another massive binge in a local bar that was subsequently renamed “Ollie’s Pub”!!) – however, whenever he chooses to flex his serious acting muscles, he is as commanding as any thespian, Frank Finlay as an inertly-wealthy Porthos, while Richard Chamberlain’s Aramis is now confessor to Chaplin and, though relegated to a “Special Appearance” credit, he does get a reasonably meaty role as a womanizing cleric! Also on hand is Roy Kinnear as an amiably impish Planchet: unfortunately, he would himself die when thrown off a horse while shooting this, an unfortunate accident which led the director to give up film-making altogether (without wishing to pass judgment on him, this decision is in stark contrast to John Landis’ essentially unruffled reaction at the even more tragic death of Vic Morrow while TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE {1983} was being made!).Anyway, the narrative here incorporates the taking of power from British King Charles I (Chaplin’s character’s brother) by Oliver Cromwell – in cahoots with Mazarin and Justine De Winter! The Queen Mother dispatches the Musketeers to save him, but they hilariously fail since, having kidnapped the executioner and hiding under the gallows ostensibly to strike at the opportune moment, Cattrall deals the deadly blow herself unheralded! Earlier, the quartet of swordsmen also had found their loyalties divided when D’Artagnan and Porthos opt to serve the Cardinal, while Athos and Aramis take the side of a rather fey Duke (while escaping the unaccountably bumbling Rochefort’s clutches – the latter even expires comically in an explosion aboard ship!) which an opposing faction supports. The swordplay is reasonably vigorous (despite the Musketeers showing their age), with Justine often taking them – and Howell – on all at once; her athletic exit, then, rips off Rupert Of Hentzau’s from “The Prisoner Of Zenda”! In the end, the film (that, watched on a 40″ screen, occasionally exhibited smudgy visuals) essentially marks the transition between the classical era of adventure films to the youth-oriented pictures prevalent today.

  • amalia-dochioiu
    amalia dochioiu

    This fun instalment of the Musketeers series (fifteen years after ‘The Four Musketeers’ was released) reunites the original four cast members (Michael York still looking impossibly young as D’Artagnan, now in the King’s army; Oliver Reed on good form as Athos, now with a weedy son Raoul (C Thomas Howell) who really doesn’t need to be there; Frank Finlay in a very silly wig as Porthos and still accident prone; and Richard Chamberlain as Aramis, now an Abbe and the Queen’s confessor, but ready (eventually) to join in the swordsplay).Kim Cattrall appears as Justine de Winter, daughter of Milady, and is completely inadequate. Making a return are Christopher Lee as Rochefort, and Roy Kinnear (who died during filming) as long-suffering servant Planchet; and fine additions to the cast include Alan Howard as Oliver Cromwell, Bill Paterson as Charles I, Jean-Pierre Cassell as Cyrano de Bergerac (an idiot who thinks geese will help him fly in a balloon to the moon) and Philippe Noiret as Mazarin.Is it as good as the 1970s instalments, also directed by Lester? The sword fights are there (and also an hilarious scene involving trapdoors in the rooms of Justine de Winter); there’s the usual set of stunts and slapstick; and there’s the darker sections – Athos remembering Milady, the execution of Charles I, the young French king imprisoned in the Tower, the gunpowder-laden ship. For me the cast member who is most memorable (as in the earlier films) is Oliver Reed, in a perfect part which gives him chance to get lots of references to alcohol in there (in one bit son Raoul offers him tea ‘a new infusion’, which Athos sprays out after a swig when being told there’s no alcohol in it!), has him stuck in a castle window, and plummeting into a water tank from the punctured balloon. Aside from the funny bits, he’s at home with the serious stuff too – proving yet again that he could act when he wanted to.There’s lots in ‘Return of the Musketeers’ to brighten your day and it was great to see the boys back for one last fling.

  • mercedes-green
    mercedes green

    Spectacular swordplay in lively style in this acceptable version of the classic Dumas novel ¨Twenty years later¨ . Producer Pierre Spengler presents Dumas’ exciting story of love and adventure ,¨The four musketeers, Twenty years later¨. For the innumerable times adapted , it’s filmed in the greatest splendor , the complete romance , the historical characters, the full novel just as Alexandre Dumas write it . It is packed with comedy , derring-do , intrigue, a love story , action , drama and moving swordplay. An awesome casting and big production shot in Spain make for a fairly amusement swashbuckler . This is the classic version of the Dumas’s novel with a handsome Michael York in a brave role as veteran and handsome musketeer , a dashing, audacious lover. This is a slight and acceptable budgeted retelling about the durable Alexandre Dumas’s novel with all star cast. This delightful adaptation based on Alexandro Dumas classic novel starts with a mature D’Artagnan who attempts to reunite the remaining Musketeers , the three two-fisted Musketeers , Athos (deliciously performed by Oliver Reed), Porthos(Frank Finlay) and Aramis (Richard Chamberlain) . Athos , the old adventurer , fighting to live and living to love , nowadays he has a rollicking son (C. Thomas Howell), Porthos married a rich woman and Aramis as dreary priest . DÁrtagnan invites to unite them in their objective to struggle against guards of astute Cardinal Mazarin (Philippe Noiret), his deputy Rochefort ( Christopher Lee ), and a devious secret agent , the Milady De Winter’s daughter ( Kim Cattrall ) who such as his mother is lovely as a jewel, deadly as a dagger the wickedest woman in all Christendom , she seeks vengeance against the Musketeers. Furthermore , there is developed an intrigue between the kid king Luis XIV, Queen Anna of Austria( Geraldine Chaplin), dazzling as her gilded palace for her, men dared a thousand perils ; and of course the nasty Mazarino . The musketeers join forces for royal vengeance and save the queen Anna from machinations from villain Cardinal Mazarin , all of them with the shout : ¨One for all and all for one¨. The Musketeers entangled in a web of treachery and intrigue become involved into historic events as the Fronda riots with the Duke Beaufort (Eusebio Lazaro) and execution of Charles I (Bill Patterson )as King of England by Oliver Cronwell (Alan Howard).It’s a passable take on from the immortal novel with quite budget and breathtaking scenarios .The picture contains rousing action, intrigue , romantic adventure, mayhem and a lot of fence. Entertaining swashbuckling , glamorous gowns by Ivonne Blake and luxurious sets by Oscar winning Gil Parrondo. Sympathetic performances by main star cast as York , Reed , Finlay , Chamberlain and enjoyable secondary cast . Kim Cattrall makes a stunning Milady De Winter’s daughter. Comic relief by Roy Kinnear who unfortunately died in an equestrian accident , falling down horse during the production and the film is dedicated at the same . As the marvelous main actors are completed by stellar cast full of classical and veteran players as Roy Kinnear as unforgettable Planchet ,Philippe Noiret , Christopher Lee , Geraldine Chaplin ,Billy Connolly , Jean Pierre Cassel as Cyrano De Bergerac and several others. Atmospheric cinematography by Bernard Lutic though is necessary a fine remastering .This is an entertaining swashbuckling, full of action, adventures,romance comedy with tongue-in-cheek and broad slapdash and of course , lot of fights . This glamorous film was utterly shot in Spain , on location of Aranjuez , Alcazar of Toledo , Studios Roma and Royal Palace (Madrid) and many other places well photographed . Packs an evocative and atmospheric score by Jean Claude Petit . The motion picture is compelling directed by Richard Lester who twenty years before filmed ¨ The three Musqueteers¨and ¨The four Musketeers¨ that were really made simultaneously and with similar artist and technician team . Lush production design is well reflected on the luxurious interiors and exteriors mostly filmed at Madrid and Toledo .This classy story about the famous ¨Musketeers ¨ is subsequently remade on several versions , firstly take on about this classic is the following : 1921 silent version by Fred Niblo with Douglas Fairbanks and going on the 1935 adaptation by Rowland V Lee with Walter Abel and Paul Lukas ; 1973 amusing version by Richard Lester with Michael York, Oliver Reed and Raquel Welch ; 1993 modern adaptation by Stephen Herek with Charlie Sheen, Kiefer Sutherland, Oliver Platt and Chris O’Donnell, and 2001 rendition by Peter Hyams with Justin Chambers, Mena Suvari and Tim Roth , among others. ¨The return of Musketeers¨ is an amusing and entertaining adaptation of the classy that will appeal to the costumer genre buffs and it results to be an average adaptation with some flaws based on the classic tale and inferior the two former entries much better directed by Richard Lester . The picture failed in Box office and the USA was released (1991) directly to cable-television Rating : 5,5 .

  • olavi-halme
    olavi halme

    It’s nice to see many of the original cast members back for this third “Musketeers” movie, even though 15 years has elapsed since the second film. Usually such a long hiatus would have resulted in changes of personnel and style, but here we have a refreshing example of that NOT being the case. They even have the same director (Richard Lester), which helps to explain why the old mix of slapstick, political intrigue, sex and action is still so effective. Before I actually saw The Return Of The Musketeers, I was foolish enough to listen to all the negative critical buzz surrounding the film. As a result I came to it already prejudiced, expecting it to be a tired, listless, unworthy end to the trilogy (as many reviewers had suggested). Not so…. this is a most enjoyable instalment, and those who say otherwise are, frankly, wrong!The musketeers as we remember them have long since gone their separate ways. D’Artagnan (perenially youthful Michael York) is the only one still employed as a musketeer, but he now works for the King – and rather less money! He is galvanised back into action when entrusted by the Cardinal Mazzarin (Phillipe Noiret) to deal with the rise of Beaufort supporters in the wake of Cromwell’s rise to power in England. However, he soon has more to worry about than a mere rebellion when it becomes apparent that a name from the past has returned to exact revenge on each of the musketeers. That name is Justine de Winter, daughter of Milady de Winter (the female villain that Faye Dunaway played in the earlier films, who was eventually captured and beheaded by the musketeers). With Justine out for revenge, D’Artagnan has to track down his old friends – some of whom are Beaufort supporters and therefore the very people he should be fighting against – and together they ride again into various adventures and dangers.There are certainly some problems with The Return Of The Musketeers, but none of them undermine the film as much as its detractors would have us believe. Firstly, Kim Cattrall plays Justine in too contemporary a style and this jars with the film’s period trappings. Secondly, Richard Chamberlain’s character, the musketeer Aramis, is not in the story much and the scripters have tried to compensate for his absence by introducing the character of Raoul, son of Athos. Alas, Raoul is both unnecessary to the story (he was mentioned in the book, but not used whatsoever as a key figure) and rather poorly played by C. Thomas Howell – another actor too contemporary for the surroundings. Apart from that, this is a most enjoyable movie with plenty of exciting sequences and good humour. In particular, there are several action sequences which are given a lovely element of slapstick (check out the wonderfully funny opening sequence, for example). The plot is quite complex and hard to keep up with – as, indeed, it was in the two earlier instalments – but the lively pacing and frequent bursts of action keep the audience engrossed. Many reviewers have already commented that this was Roy Kinnear’s last film (he died following a horse-riding accident on the set), so I won’t add too much to what has already been said. I will, however, say that Kinnear’s performance in the film is comedy at its finest and this whole film is a lovely tribute to a lovely man and his considerable comic talents.

  • justin-jenkins
    justin jenkins

    The Return of the Muketeers marks the reunion of the cast of the best adaptation of Dumas’ novel. Here, they take up the story of the sequel, The Twenty Years After. Unfortunately, it would mark the untimely end of the life and wonderful career of actor Roy Kinnear. Ironically, the tragedy is in keeping with the darker tone of the novel.Spoliers-D’Artagnan is still a lieutenant in the King’s Musketeers, his companions having retired to estates and abbeys. D’Artagnan finds himself tasked by Cardinal Mazarin to undermine the rebellion of Beufort and the Frondists. He also finds himself the target of Milady’s legacy; her evil daughter.The film starts out a bit slow, seemingly having trouble finding its footing. It picks up when the other Musketeers enter the picture and as the film progresses. Unfortunately, the tragic accident suffered by Roy Kinnear casts a palor over the ending.The original cast is as good now as in the original films. Philippe Noiret was a fine addition as Mazarin. Jean-Pierre Cassel returns, this time as Cyrano De Bergerac. Kim Cattrall is a mixed bag; she has some good moments, but her overall performance is lacking. C. Thomas Howell is completely forgettable as Athos’ son, Raoul.Part of the problem with this film is that Mazarin never seems as formidable as Richelieu and Cattrall is a poor caricature of Faye Dunaway. The scheming nature of Aramis is nicely illustrated by Richard Chamberlain, and Frank Finlay provides a wonderful turn as Porthos. Oliver Reed was sliding quickly into the depths of his career at this point, but he has many fine moments.One wonders if the film would have been better without the tragedy that befell it? Certainly, it affected the actors’ performances. Still, the script was a bit lacking and budgetary restraints did hurt as well. It would have been interesting to see the group tackle the final Musketeer installment, The Man in the Iron Mask. They certainly could have improved upon the Randall Wallace version. All-in-all, the film is fine entertainment for a quiet evening or a rainy weekend.One note of trivia: Philippe Noiret would later play D’Artagnan in Bertrand Tavernier’s Revenge of the Musketeers.