TheLittleSongbird I really liked this version of the Three Musketeers. Then again I have liked a vast majority of the adaptations of the novel, even the 1993 version which is admittedly my least favourite of the ones I liked, but it still entertained me. The novel itself by Alexandre Dumas is superbly written and a truly entertaining read. This adaptation does deviate from it, but considering how beautiful it looked and how entertaining it was I am past caring.I only have two real complaints of this movie. The film does suffer from being overlong at over two hours, consequently I did feel some scenes dragged but only slightly. My other complaint was that I wished Angela Lansbury and Vincent Price had more screen time. Lansbury is a fine actress, but because she is given very little to do, she failed to make an impression. Price is another fine actor, chiefly remembered for his performances in films like Pit and the Pendulum, Great Mouse Detective, Witchfinder General and Fall of the House of Usher. Sadly, as Cardinal Richelieu he is only in three or four scenes, but he was still good.On the whole, this 1948 film has its good points. The music score is superb, and the cinematography magnificent. The scenery is splendid and I thought the costumes were truly lavish especially Milady's dresses. The film is shot in dazzling Technicolour that still looks amazing even by today's standards. The sword fights are constantly energetic and lively, and don't feel clumsy at all. The script is on the whole good, same with the acting. Although I did worry that Gene Kelly would be out of character, as I associate him mainly with musicals, he was wonderfully athletic as D'Artagnan. Van Heflin, Gig Toung and Robert Coote all gives spirited turns as Athos, Porthos and Aramis. But who impressed me most were Lana Turner who was both beautiful and haunting as Milady and June Allyson as the lovely Constance.Overall, this 1948 film does have its flaws, but what mattered to me was who stunning it looked, it was energetic and entertaining. In these areas, that's where the film succeeded. It isn't completely faithful to the book, but I do think despite its length it is one of the better adaptations of the book out there though the 1973 film gets my vote as the definitive one. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox

edwagreen An absolute hideous production. Alexander Dumas must have turned over in his grave.Despite a terrific cast, the writing is unbelievably bad even with the plush color settings by Natalie Kalmus.Gene Kelly dances but in a different way here. He starts off as a complete jerk but soon proves himself to the other musketeers as a great swordsman.I love the way that Richelieu is not depicted as a cardinal but as the first minister. Always a shame to distort history in Hollywood spectacles. Lana Turner is lovely as Countess de Winters, even with all her evil. Poor June Allyson. Her simplicity just does her in. Only in films could they pull that off.Van Heflin looked like he was ready for a few more drinks after this film. Even the usual Vincent Price does not really have the opportunity to aggressively show evil here. At the end scene, he is cast off like a natural idiot.Frank Morgan as the king is his usual buffoon self. Angela Lansbury as his Queen briefly appears and does relatively nothing here. As de Winters' lady in waiting, Patricia Medina weeps a little. Actually, she should have cried more in this atrocious production.

aimless-46 "The Three Musketeers" (1948) is probably the most spectacularly miscast film in cinema history. This will be either hilarious or painful; depending on a viewer's sense-of-humor perversity quotient. The idea of casting Lana Turner and June Allyson in a period costume drama was absurd on its face, but the results are actually worse than you could imagine. Turner was arguably the least talented of the big-name actors of her era. Her appeal was strictly physical and she was serviceable playing herself in "Andy Hardy" type stuff. But she simply had no ability (even with good direction) to play anyone else, let alone an exotic villainess like the Dumas' Lady De Winter. And by the late 1940's the aging process had hit her particularly hard; taking away any trace of the youthful glow that had seemed so magical early in her career. At the time of casting Turner (still clueless that she had lost the physical appeal that had made her a star and apparently unaware that her career was already headed steeply downhill) was reluctant to take a "supporting" role. Then there is Allyson; she had a clue about acting but her presence brought no magic to the screen. Her most successful roles were as contemporary tomboys, not as an inspirational love interest in a lavish costume drama. Allyson was all Bronx and that just doesn't fit the tone of the Dumas classic. As D'Artagnan, Gene Kelly at least provides a reason to watch "The Three Musketeers". He is physically suited to the role and handles the acrobatic action sequences quite well. But Kelly was more dancer than actor. As someone said, his acting is much like Bob Hope without the comedic sensibility. I found it hard to keep from thinking about his faux silent film part in "Singing In the Rain". Vincent Price's Richelieu was probably fine in 1948, but his subsequent ghoul movie and "Batman" fame works against him with today's viewers. You won't recognize him in costume, but once you hear the half-witted Planchet speak you will say: "Hey that's Keenan Wynn". Unlike Price, Wynn's wide range of subsequent character roles don't undermine his performance. "The Three Musketeers" is set in 17th century France as young D'Artagnan joins the three best swordsmen in Paris: Athos (Van Heflin), Porthos (Gig Young), and Aramis (Robert Coote). Oz's Wizard, Frank Morgan, plays King Louis XIII, another astonishing bit is miscasting but the part is too small for that to be of much significance. The King and Richelieu are at odds over going to war with England, but Richelieu has the goods on the Queen (Angela Lansbury) and hopes to force a war. There is action, romance, great production design, and an excellent underlying story. Unfortunately the humorous casting decisions make it extremely difficult to suspend disbelief and get into the film as anything more than an old movie. Turner's stuff has mock- fest potential but she is thankfully only a "supporting" character. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

ragosaal "The Three Musketeers" is a story about honor, loyalty, friendship, intrigue and treason in King Louis XIII's times in France. This version directed by George Sidney (that 4 years later gave us the classic "Scaramouche") is the one that better catches the spirit and soul of Alexandre Dumas famous novel.Sidney handles the film most skilfully aided by a good script, colorful outdoor locations, fine indoor settings and a good cast. The sword play though a bit "hollywoodishly" choreographed turns out well and exciting and matches the director's idea of what this lavish adventure should be.Gene Kelly sort of overacts as D'artagnan but he gets a sympathetic character and shows his acrobatic skills in the action sequences. Lana Turner looks beautiful and is splendid as the treacherous Milady de Winter. Van Heflin is very good too in the tortured role of Athos. Gig Young and Robert Coote play Porthos and Aramis, and Vincent Price is perfect as the always intriguing Cardinal Richelieu who claims to be France. Perhaps the weak link in the cast is June Allyson as Constance Bonacieux; Allyson has always done better in contemporary parts (assigning her as Turner's jailer is the same as signing her death sentence)."The Three Musketeers" has not to be taken very seriously but as an all adventure an action swashbuckler (though it also has its dramatic parts by the end). I don't think the later versions were better than this one in catching the spirit and joy of the book.