The Three Musketeers

Audience Reviews

View More

acsdoug D @acsdoug Jul 15, 2025 By this time, I think Fairbanks was too old to play D'Artagnan, and he really overdoes the silent film dramatic gestures. Mary MacLaren is a bit dowdy and frumpy to play the alluring Queen Anne. It's hard to believe that she would be the object of Buckingham's desire. The film is also not very faithful to the original novel. However, I'm still recommending it. Fairbanks' storied athleticism is still intact, the sets are very impressive, and the pace is quick and action packed. See more Nick M @RT62896014 Dec 29, 2024 Douglas Fairbanks brings the hero D'Artagnan to life with his astounding athleticism and boundless energy, and the high production value of the film fleshes out the story with legions of extras, elaborate sets, and ornate costumes. It's difficult to tell in a Fairbanks picture how much credit the director should get, but assuming Niblo took the reins afforded by his title he is deserving of praise for his work on this film. One of my favorite characters is actually the villain, Cardinal Richelieu. Several times after we witness his machinations outside of Paris the film cuts to a close-up of his bejeweled hand caressing the handrest of his chair in a fabulously sinister fashion. We also see him softly stroking his cats as he plots with his cronies. Everything is done slowly, deliberately - it's an effective performance. On a side note, it turns out that the historical Richelieu really was fond of cats. Is this is the origin of the villain-cat trope? It's the earliest example I can recall from the cinema, at any rate. The film is well-produced and highly entertaining (though the sword play is more hilarious than harrowing), but I couldn't help but be conscious of the fact that I was watching Fairbanks, and not D'Artagnan, on screen. Everyone else was playing their roles straight, but Fairbanks mugged and played to the audience continuously, particularly during the fight scenes. Normally this is expected, even eagerly anticipated, but now that he's crossing from tongue-in-cheek comedies into period pieces the effect is more jarring. Curious about this, I read the relevant bit of James Vance's biography of him, and it turns out that D'Artagnan was a childhood hero of the actor. He had longed to play him on stage for years, but when he began conceptualizing this picture he realized that he had a boyish, idealized version of the character in his head. Fairbanks: "You know if you get right down to cases, that fellow [d'Artagnan] was a brute and a bully. He went around picking quarrels with everybody and killing folks who hadn't done anything to get killed for... We steered away from the idea... by always giving his fights a comic finish." That explains a lot of what I was seeing up there, but let's be real - Fairbanks always plays versions of the same character on screen, which is basically himself. I happen to like that character, but it does prevent his pictures from rising beyond the level of the affable comedy to something greater. See more jordan m @RT33422384 Jan 31, 2021 The first act of this movie made for tough sledding as there was a ton of exposition and they did it in a pretty rudimentary way, doing nothing to avoid excessive dialogue scenes & instead spending half the screentime showing intertitles of what the characters were saying. My wife wasn't wearing her glasses so I felt like I'd just cracked open the book from the 1840s & started reading it to her instead of pulling up a Fairbanks movie. That said, once the rising action began the movie really became quite enjoyable as the sword fights were good, Fairbanks's athleticism was certainly on display and even the music, which was somewhat invasive in the dialogue scenes, did a good job reaching crescendo where it coincided with what was happening on screen. I did find it odd that there was very little if any camera movement as several of the principals had worked with D. W. Griffith, who had pioneered camera movement in the previous decade. In all this was far from the worst silent movie we've seen and I'm looking forward to the 1929 sequel! See more Apr 25, 2015 good silent version of this often told tale. See more Dec 14, 2010 This 3 Musketeers movie is just like all the others, no surprises here, it's no better and no worse than any other. Overall it is pretty fun and entertaining, but it's long and has a bunch of boring scenes with the queen and duke and other characters. It could have been better. See more Aug 9, 2008 Barbara La Marr was a great deal of naughty fun in this romp through a very theatrical Paris. The fight scenes were nifty, but the film as a whole was a good thirty minutes longer than it needed to be. Still, I'm glad I finally got to see it, and I can't help but smile when Doug does his athletic buckling of swash. See more Read all reviews

The Three Musketeers

My Rating

Read More Read Less WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW POST RATING