Image Credit: verett Collection; Inset: Scott Gries/Getty Image Warner Bros. confirms that The Bourne Identity director Doug Liman has signed on to helm a new version of Alexandre Dumas’ 17th century novel The Three Musketeers, which could start production this fall. While I wait for my buckles to be swashed by the latest interpretation, I’ll cast my mind back fondly to the last version I saw, the 1993 Musketeers with Charlie Sheen, Kiefer Sutherland, Oliver Platt, and Chris O’Donnell as the young, very curly-haired D’Artagnan. It was not a great movie, but I recall it being fun, a quality that would seem to be one of the enduring draws for stories like Musketeers. As Roger Ebert said in his (pretty bad) review at the time, “What young actor doesn’t want to dash around on horseback and engage in swashbuckling swordfights?”
My hopes are much higher for Liman’s adaption (the guy does know how to sell a thrilling adventure after all) — if anyone can provide a fresh spin to the tale, he could. My question: Does the world need another set of Musketeers? And more importantly: Which young heartthrobs are going to get cast?
I really enjoyed The Musketeer. Indifferent about this news, though
Tayulor Lautner is a NO-BRAINER
Sounds more interesting than the new Robin Hood does thus far.
I hope they keep the sense of fun the ’93 Musketeers had and make it similar in tone to the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie. IMO, that’s the same tone the new Robin Hood and that Clive Owen King Arthur film should’ve gone for too, instead of being super-serious.
omg look at chris o’donnell’s hair! lol I had forgotten!
how about robert pattinson and the jonas brothers!
What a nice horror movie that would make!
It would be nice if someone would get it right, although Tim Curry as Richeleu will be hard to beat.
You are so right! Tim is so awesome in anything he does.
The version with Michael York, Oliver Reed, Richard Chamberlain and Faye Dunaway is so much better than the Kiefer Sutherland version.
Absolutely! And it (and the sequel) hit dvd this summer. I hope to God that it doesn’t become another teenybopper version. Put some real actors(and men) in it.
I 100% agree.
That’s the only one I know that is worth seeing
Oh, a 1000 times yes. Having seen the Richard Lester-directed film first (and the Gene Kelly/Lana Turner version from the 1940s), I couldn’t stand the 93 version.
Lester’s version was plenty fun. And it followed the general plotline of the novel, instead of turning Richlieu into a pantomine villain. And it had great, creative swordfights.
Charlton Heston as the ultimate Richelieu; Faye Dunaway the ultimate Milady; Oliver Reed the most pensive REAL Athos (sorry Kiefer – Mr. Reed was mature enough to truly demonstrate the requisite world weariness); and Roy Kinnear the awesomest Plancet/Mousequeton/Grimaud etc. compilation. and Simon Ward!! there was no better Buckingham. IMHO of course.
Because it was actually based more on what actually happened in the book rather than being a Disney-tized version of it.
The Richard Lester versionis perfect. It’s witty without being arch and dramatic without being overwrought. It’s romantic and adventurous while still being gritty. And yes, the sword fights are the absolute best of any film (except possibly “The Princess Bride”). You’re never going to beat the cast, so why bother?
It better be in glorious 3D (sarcasm)
If it’s planned and filmed in 3D a period piece like this could look truly beautiful and the action could be extremely well presented.
If it’s another Clash of The Titans, Last Airbender hatchet, patch up job then it’s another handful of nails in the coffin of what was the most important advance in filmmaking techniques since 3 colour Technicolor. (I know that skips over CGI, Steadicams and widescreen but 3D, new 3D is more akin to Synchronised sound and colour than those three advances.
Nice how you call a movie that hasn’t been released a ‘hatchet’.
No need for 3D in this though. France still has plenty of places that have the look of the period.
Oh holy hell…I like Doug Liman and all but are there NO new ideas left in the world????????
I agree. Just remakes & sequels from Hollywood.
It has always been that way; especially where “classic” literature is concerned. In fact making different version of “The Classics” isn’t remaking anymore than the dozens of versions King Lear that are likely on in various parts of the world right now are “remakes”. A new version of Back to the Future or Star Wars or Independence Day, those would be remakes. Romeo & Juliet, Cyrano De Bergerac, Robin Hood, James & The Giant Peach; those are just new versions of written source material. Unless of curse for some reason people deliberately set out to redo a filmed version as opposed to making their own version of an previous filmed version.
Of course sometimes it can get a little complicated. The Thing from another world was a classic fifties version of the story “who goes there”. John Carpenter’s eighties The Thing was a different, and far more faithful, version of the same book; BUT it was called The Thing, even using the same font, to create a connection to the first film and thus came across as a remake rather than a new film.
Anyway for more on how “remakes and sequels” have been in Hollywood since Hollywood began you may wish to read my “work” on the SyFy channel UK’s website ….
http://www.syfy.co.uk/blog/hollywood_remake_fever_play_it_again_sam
….
Or this on why sometimes we need a good remake to wash the stench of a poor original attempt…..
http://www.syfy.co.uk/blog/remake-fever-clash-golden-compass
The casting of the 70s version was pitch perfect. The Man In The Iron Mask had a good cast as well but the ’93 version was Young Guns in feathered caps.
The only problem I had with Man in the Iron Mask (I’m assuming you mean the one with Leonardo Decaprio) is that it wasn’t true to the book. That book was much darker, and the ‘good guys’ lose.
OMG Shane is right…How about the seaquel for “Brainless in hollywood”
sequel
I really like the original-new stuff please instead of re-making older ones
Jeremy Renner seemes to be a good pick.
Do we really need another movie of this story?