?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Well, here we are again...




Let's be honest: this thing looks like it is on crack. I mean, watch that trailer and tell me it isn't.

The sad thing is, it has a very good cast. The kid playing D'Artagnan and the guy playing Aramis are mysteries to me, but it is hard to go wrong with Ray Stevenson (Pullo!) as Porthos -- in fact I'm going to say right now that I think he has the potential to be the best Porthos we've had on film; that is because I do love him so. Based on the voice alone (he does most of the voiceover work of the trailer), and on seeing him as Darcy in that update of P&P a bit back, I think Matthew Macfadyen will make an acceptable Athos. (From me, that is actually high praise. He might -- might -- acceptably fill Oliver Reed's shoes, see icon. And that is saying a lot, because no other film Athos I've seen has even come close, and some have been downright what the actual fuck.)

Meanwhile, you've got Milla Jovovich as Milady, Orlando Bloom as Buckingham, Mads Mikkelsen as Rochefort, and Christoph Waltz (of whom I've heard good things) as Richelieu. I'm not sensing any duds in the cast, so long as the kids they've got playing D'Artagnan and Aramis can hold their own.

But lord, what is going ON in that trailer? I... just... don't even know what we're looking at, sometimes.

Nevermind. It may wind up being Very Bad (which given the potential of the cast, would be a shame), but I am going to have to go see it anyway.

Note: we are NOT going to see it in 3D. You can't make me.

Tags:

Comments

( 31 comments — Leave a comment )
jenlev
Apr. 2nd, 2011 11:04 pm (UTC)
Buh? Um....ok, that's not crack they're on....it's Electric Kool Aid. Seriously.

I think it's a combination of a Steampunked Time Bandits (which I know is like saying deja vu & all over again) and Kung Fu Panda with a sprinkling of Something so WTF I can't think of what to call it.

I'm just sayin'.

PS. What if it's only in 3-D? I mean, even my little podunk theater down the street has converted. *sigh*

Edited at 2011-04-02 11:09 pm (UTC)
eregyrn
Apr. 2nd, 2011 11:12 pm (UTC)
You know, I didn't even lose it at the Gimp Ninja, but then came the flying ship...

You're right. Serious Electric Kool Aid.

It can't ONLY be in 3D. There will have to be some theatre that offers options -- like some of the big multi-screen ones down our way. Surely. Or I may weep.
(no subject) - jenlev - Apr. 2nd, 2011 11:22 pm (UTC) - Expand
clanwilliam
Apr. 2nd, 2011 11:22 pm (UTC)
It's crack, but with that cast, if they live up to their reputations, they'll all have taken it in the Right Way, which means it will hopefully be wildly entertaining crack that all the actors thoroughly enjoyed doing.
eregyrn
Apr. 3rd, 2011 12:34 am (UTC)
That is my hope. That and the idea that no matter what crack is happening, watching the way the various actors bring the characters to life will be worth it. (The 73/74 version, which I consider to be definitive, has its cracky moments and questionable tone decisions, but it still works wonderfully.)
(Deleted comment)
eregyrn
Apr. 3rd, 2011 12:36 am (UTC)
You are doubtless thinking of the same shot from the trailer that I am thinking of. :) Yes, and I see no bad there. I really kind of like the idea that they're putting folks in period-ish costume but they're still allowing the ladies to kick ridiculous amounts of ass. Why not?

I feel that I've paid my dues, with regard to seeing 3D movies. I don't need to do it any more. (I do wonder how much business a film would lose if it completely eschewed 2D, though. I just hope that if some movie tries it, it's not a movie that I deeply want to see.)
(no subject) - veejane - Apr. 3rd, 2011 01:33 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - eregyrn - Apr. 3rd, 2011 01:43 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - veejane - Apr. 3rd, 2011 01:46 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - eregyrn - Apr. 3rd, 2011 03:52 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - eregyrn - Apr. 3rd, 2011 04:37 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - eregyrn - Apr. 3rd, 2011 03:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
elishavah
Apr. 3rd, 2011 12:17 am (UTC)
Ray Stevenson! OMG, just from what we see if him here, he's hotter and more amazing than ever.

According to imdb, the D'Artagnan kid was Percy Jackson. He was certainly not why that movie that sucked. Provided he can lose the "hip young thing with a smirk" vibe (that worked very well in that movie, but will drive me batshit in this one), I have high hopes.

Aramis...at least he's a Welshman who's been in an interesting range of things.

And yeah, the rest of the cast = niiiice.

I don't know wtf to do with the apparently flying ship. But I'm sure the theater you're thinking of will have a non-3D option for us.
eregyrn
Apr. 3rd, 2011 12:42 am (UTC)
I KNOW, RIGHT? Oh yeah, baby. I am serious, I cannot think of a better choice for Porthos. I mean -- the 73/74 version, I consider definitive, and Frank Finlay is a fantastic actor... but I'm totally willing to say I think Ray Stevenson will be a better Porthos. Because I think he will, finally, give us a Porthos who is not just comedy relief. (You know the sad thing? Prior to this, the best Porthos on film was probably Oliver Platt's.) I think that Porthos SHOULD be sexy. He should be larger than life. They all should.

Ohhhhhhh. Percy Jackson. Okay. Man, I thought I knew that smirk. Yeah. We'll see how that works out.

I'm just worried about Aramis because the actor largely seems to have been cast as a pretty face in other stuff (such as the Apollo role). We'll see, though. As I said, he has a lot to live up to (although... amongst those who have memorably played Aramis, you've got... Charlie Sheen. So. Yeah.) And he has a lot to do, to hold his own against those other two.

I neeeed a non-3D option.
okojosan
Apr. 3rd, 2011 12:36 am (UTC)
I saw this yesterday and thought of you! I've never read the book, nor seen any other movie, so I'm not really familiar with the story/characters but even I could see this was entirely cracky. I think I'll have to read it now because I don't think I would know wtf is going on if I went to see this movie.

Another not-fan of 3D, eh? Thank goodness, I thought I was the only one.
eregyrn
Apr. 3rd, 2011 12:49 am (UTC)
I think most of us in the circle of people I know have decided very much against 3D. I don't know about anyone else, but... I wear glasses. Most 3D glasses don't take people wearing glasses into account. It bugs the hell out of me.

Here's what I'm going to tell you right now: don't read the book first. The best thing you can actually do is rent/Netflix/whatever the 1973 "Three Musketeers" and the 1974 "Four Musketeers" (originally shot as one film, and then they realized how long it was and split it into two). The cast is truly amazing. It is as faithful to the book as you are going to get -- but, frankly, it is leavened with a nice amount of humor, and it has what the books lacks, which is people to bring the old-fashioned dialogue to life, bringing action scenes to life, and the aforementioned humor.

Don't get me wrong, the book is a famous classic, and it's an interesting read if you are really into that Dickensian "this was written in the 19th century and he was paid by the word" thing. But if you want the essence of the story and the characters, get those movies. I'd say that the humor gets a little slapsticky at times, so you have to get yourself into that mindset, but the acting is fantastic, and I'm going to say it has, hands-down, the best sword-and-swashbuckling fight scenes in cinema. (Mostly because it doesn't ONLY consist of sword fighting -- the film's fight designers realized that in the time period, yes, people used their swords... but they were out to win, not to adhere to any fancy fencing rules. Thus, the people in the film fight really down and dirty, and it looks like the way people would fight if they were fighting for real and fighting to win. I have always loved that.)

Edited at 2011-04-03 12:49 am (UTC)
(no subject) - okojosan - Apr. 3rd, 2011 01:41 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - eregyrn - Apr. 3rd, 2011 01:46 am (UTC) - Expand
miera_c
Apr. 3rd, 2011 01:54 am (UTC)
The 73/74 movies are beyond compare. Everything else will pale in comparison, no matter what. *nods*



Edited at 2011-04-03 03:37 am (UTC)
eregyrn
Apr. 3rd, 2011 04:39 am (UTC)
This is very true. But I'd at least like to watch a modern version that didn't make me wince.

This one might not. Mainly because I tend to care about the portrayal of the characters than the cracky plot. (We do not even speak of the John Malkovich Athos. *shudder*)
(no subject) - miera_c - Apr. 3rd, 2011 02:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - eregyrn - Apr. 3rd, 2011 03:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - wadjet_theperv - Apr. 3rd, 2011 06:22 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - miera_c - Apr. 3rd, 2011 02:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
raqs
Apr. 3rd, 2011 03:34 am (UTC)
so. much. crack.
eregyrn
Apr. 3rd, 2011 04:40 am (UTC)
It's like they selected the successive shots to include in the trailer purely on the basis of, "Oh, wait -- they won't be expecting THIS!"
wadjet_theperv
Apr. 3rd, 2011 06:18 am (UTC)
On crack. Absolutely. Or possibly PCP. However, it does look rather... intriguing so I'll give it a go. I'm liking Porthos and ITA about Ollie Reed. A legend.

I also agree about 3D. I've seen a couple of movies in 3D with the girls and I have to say I'm not that big a fan.

We shall see. I have a soft spot for the story anyway. It was one of the first books I ever read. I can distinctly remember being about seven and having trouble with pronouncing D'Artagnan.
eregyrn
Apr. 4th, 2011 01:48 am (UTC)
I was actually exposed to the story before I could read. I have extremely early memories of watching a cartoon series, which ran as part of a variety-hour type of thing on American TV in the very early 70s. It wasn't based on the books exactly, but certainly was about the core characters. (So as a consequence, I knew how to SAY D'Artagnan's name long before I encountered it in print.)
flower_star
Apr. 3rd, 2011 04:35 pm (UTC)
Whoo, okay - that looks cracky indeed! Let's hope it turns out to be the good crack ... I love the Disney version (90-ish? Don't ask me) which was very much untrue to the book but still fun, so it's got a lot of potential to be bad in an entertaining way for me :p.

Definitely not watching in 3D if I can help it, too!
eregyrn
Apr. 4th, 2011 01:49 am (UTC)
The Disney version was indeed pretty fun -- Platt's Porthos was pretty good, really, and it's hard to go wrong with Tim Curry as Richelieu! But I had to give a thumbs-down to Kiefer Sutherland's Athos.
(Deleted comment)
eregyrn
May. 4th, 2011 03:00 pm (UTC)
I KNOW, RIGHT?

I actually kind of wish he were playing Aramis instead. But it may be that he would be too young to play Aramis, against the apparent age of those playing Athos and Porthos.

Oh. Except, the guy playing Porthos was born in 1964... the guy playing Athos was born in 1974. He's only 3 years older than Bloom.

So... oh well, Bloom would have been better as Aramis, IMO. But he'll be quite good as Buckingham, I think.
( 31 comments — Leave a comment )