Los tres mosqueteros

  • España Los tres mosqueteros en 3D (más)
Tráiler 3

Sinopsis(1)

Son conocidos como Athos, Porthos y Aramis, tres guerreros de élite que sirven al rey de Francia como sus mejores mosqueteros. Tras descubrir una malévola conspiración para derrocar al rey, los mosqueteros se cruzan con un joven que aspira a convertirse en héroe, D'Artagnan, y lo toman bajo su tutela. Juntos, los cuatro emprenden una peligrosa misión para frustrar el complot que amenaza no solo a la Corona de Francia, sino al futuro de la propia Europa. (Aurum Producciones)

(más)

Reseñas (7)

Isherwood 

todas reseñas del usuario

inglés Subjectively, the film fulfills everything you imagine in the phrase "The Three Musketeers directed by Paul Anderson," in a wholly positive sense. The trailers promised that it would be a blast. The inventive action combined with a superb cast, where everyone enjoys their role to the fullest, brings smiles of satisfaction to the audience’s faces. However, there are issues in the passages without any action, where perhaps it's not so much the gibberish dialogue that bothers us, but rather the fact that it has no pizzazz and lacks even the slightest bit of unpredictability. This means that you’ll simply know that Lerman will be a (likable) brat until the end and that the main three characters will be serving up catchphrases even if airships are falling from the sky. I'm not disappointed, I just think Anderson needs a tighter dramaturgical whip on him, and then he'll serve up one Death Race after another. :) 3 ½. ()

Malarkey 

todas reseñas del usuario

inglés These Three Musketeers are something completely different than you would expect. And that’s actually a good thing. After all, what good would it do me to watch the same story over and over again, just with different actors? This story is always taken very seriously not only from a historical point of view and at times gets quite romantic. Anderson took the originally story, fucked around with it, gave it a thrashing, abused it and this is the result – a completely zany ride which makes no sense whatsoever but entertains. And that’s the most important thing. You must take it as entertainment, not as a historical tale. Then it works, and rather well at that. The actors also understood this and I must say that I had quite a good time with them. I laughed and got to see the musketeers as a bonus. ()

Marigold 

todas reseñas del usuario

inglés A little more sophisticated Uwe Boll, which unfortunately doesn't change the fact that a grave robber like Paul W.S. Anderson should never have come close to such a substance. Moreover, this mixture of clumsy borrowings of pirate playfulness and Ritchie cunning is completely walled off by the director's inability to come up with anything stylishly consistent. Some of the shots of Milla Jovovich suggest that Paul is probably henpecked at home. I understand that it's nice to show how his wife is still the same thunderous female at a more advanced age, but unfortunately Anderson proves that he, too, is still the same dumbass at his age. Two just for Mads, who (again) has no eye and is demonic (again). ()

novoten 

todas reseñas del usuario

inglés Three steampunk musketeers or Anderson saves himself. It seemed that Paul W.S. would spend the rest of his life alternating between hastily made B-movies and more and more sequels of Resident Evil. But then came an adventurous spectacle that is everything a boy's viewer's soul could wish for. A celebration of courage, a showcase of inventions, an action-packed ride, and an ode to Milly Jovovich's legs. Well-deserved. The most praiseworthy thing, however, is that Alexander Dumas doesn't have to rotate in his grave. The arrangement of characters, familiar plot twists, and central message about friendship and loyalty - it's all here. Perhaps only the overshot metrosexuality of the French king slightly disrupted peaceful sleep. But I'll gladly forgive that too. For some of us, today will be all about airships, swords, and Constance. Not necessarily in that order. ()

Kaka 

todas reseñas del usuario

inglés Unlike most other users, I actually quite liked the 1993 version. If nothing else, it had quality action and a top-notch cast. But that’s the core of the problem, that version was a grandiose and high-budget production that had great ambitions but ultimately failed, as it did not meet the expectations of die-hard fans of the book and previous films. This current version has no ambitions, other than entertain, and the audience, for sure this time, did not expect anything at all – logically, they could not have been disappointed. If we truly look at it objectively, it is unbelievably off the mark compared to the source material. It is evident that the director disregarded all previous adaptations and made this one his own way. It is funny, the actors are good, and it doesn't lack traditional European action flair (fast-paced scenes, cuts), as well as a few adorable moments. I couldn't neglect the excellent Mads Mikkelsen, who always gives a worthwhile performance no matter the role. In terms of entertainment, it meets the standard, but in terms of art or any other film-making value, it falls 20 thousand leagues below par. ()

D.Moore 

todas reseñas del usuario

inglés In his modern interpretation, "Paul W. S. Anderson honors the realities of the story and intends his modern rendition to approach the narrative quality of the original literary work." I laughed again at the official distributor text. I will admit, though, that these Three Musketeers are better the second time around than the first time. The second time around, I knew what to expect - unprecedented, but quite entertaining stupidity with airship fights, action scenes that beat anything from Anderson's Resident Evil, likable heroes and beautiful cleavage... namely women. Why not? ()

kaylin 

todas reseñas del usuario

inglés "The Three Musketeers" are an absolute classic in both literature and creation. Some film adaptations are more successful than others, some are more serious, others funnier. When we were told that Paul W. S. Anderson would be making a new version, one started to wonder if Hollywood had gone crazy. The director, who is responsible for films like "Resident Evil" or "Death Race", didn't seem like an excellent choice for such a classic. It's not surprising, he's a director who handles action well, but the ability to breathe life into a classic, that was doubtful. And the result? The doubts were completely justified. Swords are used here for a maximum of five minutes, the rest of the battles are mostly done with the sounds of firearms. "All for one, one for all" is only said while drinking wine and they don't ride horses because it's quite unnecessary when you have an airship at your disposal. Milady de Winter, played by Milla Jovovich, is basically a disguised Alice from "Resident Evil" because the action moves she shows us seem to have been taken straight out of a zombie classic. Or from "The Matrix". And on top of that, we have Cardinal Richelieu, played by Christoph Waltz, who fences. The classic has been turned upside down and it has become a crazy Hollywood-style brawl. Dumas is turning in his grave and cursing Anderson, and I can calmly say that I will never watch this again. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/07/happy-feet-2-bobr-cislo-4-musketyri.html ()