Down the Hobbit Hole, Part Deux

There can't possibly be a human alive who who has watched Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and didn't fall in love with them. From 2001 to 2003, the man behind such studio bombs as Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners tackled the beloved series of novels by J.R.R. Tolkien, and in doing so became the hero to fantasy fans around the globe, culminating with the climactic The Return of the King's win for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. There are many who consider that movie as among the greatest movies ever made, and many more would include it within their top 10 of all time. That's why people were so excited when Jackson was eventually tasked with taking Tolkien's introductory novel "The Hobbit" and adapting it to the big screen, even if it was going to be three movies (that's about 100 pages per entry), and featured brand new technology that showed the film at a crisp - albeit occasionally nausea inducing - 48 frames per second.

The one moment of rest in this crazy thing.

And it's also the reason many were somewhat disappointed in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, a movie that felt both overlong and overly-saturated with blatant Lord of the Rings fan service. While it was still better than most people gave it credit, there's no doubt that Jackson's delicate balancing act didn't quite pay off, as his additions to what was otherwise a bare-bones plot came off as not intended to make the best movie, but please the biggest crowds. However, despite An Unexpected Journey's many flaws, it was still good enough to keep both die-hards and casual viewers excited for Bilbo Baggins' continued adventures in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, which came out this weekend. While Jackson still has to add a LOT in to make up for the fact that he's made a two-and-a-half hour movie out of such a small part of a small book, his continuation of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellan), Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) and their company of dwarves as they journey to liberate the treasure-laden Kingdom of Erebor from the clutches of ginormous dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch). Desolation sees the party arriving at the Lonely Lountain, after contending with Orcs, giant spiders, uncompromising elves, a huge shape-shifting bear, and - worst of all - small-town politics.

That's right, Bilbo, welcome to Camden, NJ.

That Jackson can create a genuinely fun film where his protagonists essentially face their threats through the same means every time (fighting and running, usually in that order) is very much indicative of how good a director he really is. No matter how big or small a budget is, bad directors will usually blow it, while good directors will almost always shine, and this is a man in his element. Jackson, through a mixture of New Zealand scene-capturing and green screen implementation on par with Lucas or Cameron at their best, recreates the world of Middle Earth with such clarity and vision that even the most discerning eye couldn't find fault with his approach. Most notably, the character designs are a huge step up from An Unexpected Journey, where most of the monsters were a bit cartoonish and lacked menace. Here, secondary antagonist Azog (Arrow's Manu Bennett) is vastly improved animation-wise, and Smaug himself is terrifying, through the latter is also enhanced by the talent and charisma of Cumberbatch, who steals the movie much in the way fellow motion-capture specialist Andy Serkis' Gollum did the first time around.

He's one bad mama jama.

Jackson also seems to show a keen insight of what worked and what didn't work in An Unexpected Journey. The Desolation of Smaug, story-wise, is superior in just about every way to the first installment. That's partly because Jackson finally gets it across that this is not Bilbo's story. Yes, the name of the movie DOES start with The Hobbit, and the young adventurer is certainly no passive observer, as things would easily turn out much different without him. But this middle entry makes it perfectly clear that the whole affair is really about an exiled prince's quest to reclaim his homeland, and what that journey does to him emotionally. Armitage's character grows so much this time around, as Thorin finds himself surrounded by familiar territory and the prospect of power looming. Borrowing from Lord of the Rings, the idea of power corrupting the noble is yet another link back to the first trilogy, but thematically it fits and stands as one of Jackson's better implemented connections.

You still can't remember all their names, can you?

But Smaug's overall quality improvement is also because there's more of a flow to the storytelling this time around. Jackson's addition of legitimate Tolkien lore - plus a few improvements all his own - don't feel nearly as ham-handed this time around. There is still a ton of fan service, but most of it - for instance the appearance of Orlando Bloom's Legoas - are perfectly sewn into the plot (although they couldn't resist throwing in a Gimli jab). The prequel elements are still in play, as Gandalf's adventures reveal more elements that won't come to fruition until The Fellowship of the Ring, but gone are the forced cameos from Christopher Plummer, Cate Blanchett (who does still have one small appearance), Hugo Weaving, Ian Holm, and Elijah Wood, which did little more than appease fans of the original trilogy. And you have to imagine that Jackson learned his mistake in including Sylvester McCoy's Radagast the Brown (also known as "Jar Jar") in reducing his screentime in Desolation. I'm just glad the director did not try to shoehorn a Gollum appearance in, as it would have been cool but counterproductive to the project.

Between this and Magneto, McKellan never has to work again.

As to the tale, there are four converging storylines - Bilbo and the Dwarves, Legolas and elf captain Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly, added because The Hobbit sadly has no ladies) hunting orcs, Gandalf tracking down the Necromancer (also Cumberbatch) and the political struggle of Lake-town between Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans) and the town's Master (the always amiable Stephen Fry) - and while three of those things were most definitely NOT part of the original novel, almost none of it feels out of place or unnecessary. The dwarves even have a bit more to do and say, although I still defy you to identify each one on sight and point out how each individual is important to the overall story. The only one of them to have an arc is Kili (Aidan Turner) who takes an arrow in the knee AND falls head over heels for Tauriel. Well, he is rather tall for a dwarf. However, I say "almost" all the sub-stories fit because the Lake-town political struggle comes late in the game and does little more than pad out the film's already-gargantuan run-time. But it also allows Richard Armitage's Thorin to make a big speech (aww, almost like a little Aragorn) and show what a leader he could be. So between that and setting up much of the struggle for the third movie, it serves its purpose.

Mark my words, Luke Evans is going to be huge very, very soon.

Because of that strong storytelling, Tolkien's characters also have quite a bit more to do this time around. Martin Freeman looks more comfortable in the hairy soles of Bilbo Baggins, and his natural charm combined with the character's everyman heroics make for an easy hero for whom to root. Armitage, McKellan and Evans also stand out, each bringing a slightly different bravado to the big screen that cements their identities in wholly different ways. Bloom, Lilly and Lee Pace (as the elven king Thranduil) add quite a bit of variety, with Bloom's obviously CGI-enhanced skin the only serious gripe I can muster. All the characters have something to add, whether it's plot exposition, or classic sword-and-sorcery tropes, or humor, though Jackson thankfully shies away from singing or childish gags this time around. Everyone's personalities are coming to a head, just in time for the epic showdown that will be next year's There and Back Again.

Because Middle Earth needs at least one kick-ass femme fatale...

In fact, The Desolation of Smaug shows few of it's many flaws on the surface, though some are remarkably vivid. Some scenes, such as an early one with Mikael Persbrandt as the skin-changer Beorn, feel included solely to appease fans of the novel, their actual relevance to the plot shoddy or un-revealed. Some new characters are merely rehashed versions of minor characters from the original trilogy. For instance, Ryan Gage's Alfrid (the Master's assistant) is practically a carbon copy of Grima Wormtongue. And the action sequences, while a whole lot of fun, tend to get more than a little silly and nonsensical, as well as over-long.

He's baaaack...

But the movie's biggest fault (beyond the story, of course) might become apparent if you see it on IMAX screens. Jackson's decision to film his newest trilogy at twice the normal framerate is quite the ambitious affair, as 48 frames per second was the next - albeit untested - effort to create a brighter, more crisp picture. But what happens when you're able to see things more closely is see more visual errors. This is apparent in the Lonely Mountain sequence, were a meticulously-rendered Smaug is perfect, while the settings around him have not been given nearly as much attention, and it shows. It's distracting, and can easily take the viewer right out of the experience, no matter the quality of the cast or director. It's not as noticeable if you're watching on a smaller screen (and certainly not in 3D), but it doesn't do much to positively endorse Jackson's ambitious method.

Oh, right, he IS in this...

I still contend that Tolkien's first major novel did NOT need to get separated into three films, as there simply hasn't been enough story for our main heroes to engage in without blast after blast of narcissism, nostalgia and unnecessary fan service in a deliberate (and when you consider the popularity of Lord of the Rings, unnecessary) attempt to appeal to audiences. That said, The Desolation of Smaug is still a big step up from its predecessor (let's call it an 8 out of 10), and there's nobody I'd trust more to compile this series than Jackson, who shows he's still got the goods a decade after his last great movie. And let's face it, if and when you see this (and An Unexpected Journey, which isn't great but is still a good, solid effort), there's no chance you won't be chomping at the bit to see next year's finale, which now feels ages away. It's not nearly up to the quality Jackson set with his first foray into Tolkien's work, but his Hobbit trilogy is turning into a decent - and more importantly, fun and exciting - moviegoing experience.

Open Letters Monthly: Fast & Furious 6

Fast Five was one of the bigger surprises of 2011, as the street race franchise turned full-on heist flick a la Oceans 11 and brought together almost every favorite character from the franchise, while also adding the immeasurable credentials of Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson to the mix. Now they've done it again, and Fast & Furious 6 proves itself even bigger and bolder than its predecessor in crafting a redemption tale for its gang of thrill-seeking thieves.

After pulling off the impossible in Rio, Dominic Toretto and his team scatter to the four corners of the Earth with their share of a $100 million prize. But they're called together again by old friend Luke Hobbs, who needs their help in hunting down dangerous terrorist Owen Shaw, a man with similar tactics to our heroes. Hobbs offers the team full pardons for their assistance, but that isn't the reason Dom agrees to help. One of Shaw's crew is a familiar face from the past, and while they all assumed that Letty Ortiz had been dead a long time, they can't explain why someone who looks just like her appears to be assisting Shaw in bringing chaos to the world.

Fast & Furious 6 is directed by Justin Lin and stars Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Dwayne Johnson, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Sung Kang, Gal Gadot, Chris "Ludacris" Bridges, Gina Carano and Luke Evans.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

Unlike a Writing Desk

When box office historians look back on this past weekend, it will likely be referred to as "the weekend before The Avengers." Four major motion pictures were released in a last-second grab for cash before Marvel's superhero movie could end all hopes for their final grosses. It's a shame, because all four films had been ones in which I'd held at least some interest, some for months to this point; Aardman's animated Pirates: Band of Misfits, Jason Statham kicking ass in Safe, and the reunion of Jason Segel, Nicholas Stoller and Judd Apatow (with a little Emily Blunt for good measure) in The Five-Year Engagement were all atop my must-watch list. But as a few people might know, I've always been fond of the renowned poet and author (and Boston-born) Edgar Allen Poe. From The Tell-Tale Heart to Annabel Lee, I've never lacked for interest in Poe's tales of the macabre. I even used the final line from his lesser-known Imp of the Perverse as my yearbook quote. And so with Todd sharing my love of the bard, we made The Raven our destination film Saturday evening. Directed by James McTeigue (V for Vendetta) and starring everybody's favorite Cusack (hint: it's not Joan), The Raven already had a few things going in its favor. Now it had to show that it deserved being seen over the three other potentially entertaining titles from this week.

Cusack manages to fit in a little light reading.

These are the final days in the life of the renowned and beggarly author Edgar Allen Poe (John Cusack). Poe works as a reviewer for a Baltimore newspaper, having been unable to overcome the mental block that has all but ended his fiction-writing career. Despite being drunk most of the time, he still finds the time and charm to woo the lovely Emily Hamilton (Alice Eve), whose father thinks Poe as less than nothing. Poe's life becomes more interesting when he is approached by Police Inspector Fields (Luke Evans), who informs him that murders resembling those in Poe's short stories have begun popping up in Baltimore, and the police need him to shine a light on why. Poe agrees to lend his unique perspective to solving the mystery, but ends up at the center of the investigation when the killer kidnaps his beloved Emily. Challenging the author to a game of wits, the murderer sets events in motion that can only end in misery and death.

Someone's feeling a little Dark Knight-esque.

No question, the main reason to see this film on the big screen is if you're a fan of Poe's work. That being said, you might not be enamored with Cusack's take on the legendary author. It's obvious that this a lot of inspiration was taken from another literary figure turned film hero (cough... Sherlock Holmes) in building a story for Poe, but what results is a mixed bag of insane ideas and unfinished thoughts. The actor delivers his lines well enough; it's everything else that's the problem. First, he's got a lousy screenplay giving him out-of-place, gotta-be-unintentional humorous dialogue that feels utterly wrong amid the stark, bleak environment. It's extremely sad to see Cusack emulating Nic Cage, and one wonders how the National Treasure failed to secure a bid as the star in The Raven. On top of Cusack's bad lines, there's also a distinct disconnect between the drunk, depressed Poe that history remembers and this film's take on the character, especially once he's needed for the investigation. Poe does not appear to get drunk; indeed, Cusack looks like he's acting drunk while sipping colored water, a showing of his There is no "emotional journey" with this film's Poe; one moment he's feeling this, the next he's not, and there is no gradual change in behavior that should be natural for this type of story. This is not Poe as history remembers him, and this is not Poe as we would want to remember him, either.

Poe begins to wonder where it all went so wrong...

Well, at least there's a strong, thought-provoking story for us to latch onto... wait, what? No? In the words of Jay Sherman, "It stinks"? Huh. In discussing with Todd after the show, we delved into what made this murder mystery wrong on so many levels. First of all, the police work in the film was shoddy at best. Luke Evans' character was obviously the smartest of the bunch (outside of Poe, of course), but even he shies away from the most obvious queries, from how the killer knew of Poe's secret love for Emily Hamilton to his obvious infatuation with Poe's writings. Fields obviously knows about Poe's work (otherwise why would he contact Poe to help?) but needs to constantly ask Poe about things he should have already researched himself? The film's characters follow along with the plot set for them, never questioning why they cannot go in another direction. Why? Is this ineptitude on the part of Inspector Fields or screenwriters Ben Livingston (a nobody actor with no writing experience) and Hannah Shakespeare (who doesn't live up to her namesake)? I think we know the answer. Sure, the film does a good job making sure you never guess the killer (mostly because he barely appears until the end), but this was no Sherlock Holmes mystery, and the fact that the murders were based on Poe's works is really the only reason this movie is called The Raven and not Generic Early American Murder Mystery Movie. McTeigue manages to fit in some nice visual elements, but not nearly enough to make this a good cinematic experience.

Emily Hamilton is so beautiful, it's almost as if she never existed...

Other major issues abound, for instance how potential clues are introduced only to be cast aside, and the characters having to verbalize every single thought because otherwise we probably wouldn't be able to tell what was going on. While I don't even care that the film is completely historically inaccurate, even I have to laugh when one of the characters killed in the film is Rufus Wilmot Griswold, who in real life wrote Poe's scathing obituary. In a film where only Griswold and Poe actually existed in real life, I suppose I wouldn't care so much about the lax historical objectivity had the film not stayed completely within social conventions. In the 1978 novel Poe Must Die by Marc Olden, the bad guys employed magic and pagan gods in their deliberations, and the result was a science fiction  story that WORKED because it was so out there. There were several opportunities for The Raven to really knock this concept out of the park. Unfortunately, McTeigue and team were unwilling to stretch away from the classic murder mystery pastiche, and their film suffers for it.

Mmmm, tastes like chicken!

This was definitely NOT how I wanted to cap off the Spring movie season. The Raven tries in earnest to become a new Sherlock Holmes, but both the character and the film itself fail to live up to modest hopes, and that's a shame for the legacy of one of my all-time favorite authors. Destined to dwell among the lower ranks of mediocre 2012 titles, this film had tons of potential but not one bit of the will to realize it. Poe is still a viable historical and literary figure, and chances are somewhere down the line someone will attempt to do him justice in yet another feature film, likely surrounding the mystery of his death. But will any filmmaker treat one of America's master storytellers with the degree of respect he deserves? Or at least hold his work in high enough regard to create an excellent story?

Quoth The Raven, "Nevermore."

Brawl of the Gods

They just don't make sword and sorcery epics like this.

Well, to be fair, they've never really made sword and sorcery films like this in the past, period. 3D epics are a relatively new thing in this day and age, beginning with 2010's remake of Clash of the Titans, and continuing this year with the Conan the Barbarian and now Immortals. It was this newest title that drew me to the theater quite recently, the latest release amid a season in which very few films have done much to stand out from a sea of mediocrity. Trying to solve that problem with gore, sex, and the face of the upcoming Superman reboot, Immortals had the potential to fall somewhere between the huge strides that the similarly-violent 300 made in 2006 and the crater left from the Conan sequel. In other words, it really could have gone anywhere. I personally was interested in seeing how this title would translate to 3D, and whether British lead Henry Cavill would prove able to lead a major motion picture two years before Man of Steel hits the big screen. I hadn't heard any good things heading in, but that's hardly a new concept, and I wanted to judge for myself whether this title would deserve remembrance years from now.

Robin Hood and her merry men, no doubt.

In the ancient past, a war amongst immortal beings was waged, with the two sides discovering that they could indeed kill their formerly invincible foes. When all was said and done, the victors christened themselves Gods and reigned high on Mt. Olympus. The vanquished were resigned to imprisonment in Mt. Tartatus, called Titans. Now the evil King of Crete, Hyperion (Mickey Rourke), seeks the fabled Epirus Bow, a weapon designed to release the Titans from their imprisonment and set them loose upon the world. The only people standing in his way are Theseus (Cavill), a bastard low-born guided by the gods, the virgin oracle Phaedra (Freida Pinto), and their mishmash of followers, all of whom would follow Theseus to the ends of the Earth.

That's not a face you ever want to look up to

Any student of ancient mythology of course will see that the plot of the film is loosely based on the Titanomachy, or the war between the Olympians and the Titans, and the myths of Theseus and the Minotaur. As in last year's Clash, however, that only means that the names were kept intact while the story was made more suitable for mass consumption. Actually, I thought that director Tarsem Singh did a good job with interpreting the myths presented in this storyline. Many people, Theseus and Hyperion included, have no faith in the gods due to them having not answered their prayers even in their darkest moments. This is a theme that is relevant even today, and is the reason so many people call themselves Atheist or Agnostic. The Gods don't interfere because Zeus (Luke Evans) wants to have faith in the humans as many of them do in the Gods. Beyond that, the Minotaur is not a mythological creature, but a giant warrior wearing a mask in the shape of a bull's head. While there are still several almost mystical elements involved in the story (the Gods and Titans themselves, Phaedra's premonitions, and the Epirus Bow's magic arrows chief among them), it's impressive that Singh binds them with a certain amount of realistic interpretation of mythology at the same time.

Real bad-asses don't wear helmets

Probably where Immortals excels the most is in the visual and action departments. Even without 3D (and this is another film that doesn't really benefit from 3D implementation) the distant visuals are as beautiful and meticulously designed as any big-budget film I've seen in the past decade. It would be easy to write it all off as computer generated, but it's extremely difficult to tell the difference, and there is no doubting the effectiveness it has in setting the tone of the story. Singh's previous efforts (The Cell, The Fall) have been largely visual-based, and he knows how to set a film so that you are ensnared by the what you see while following the tale. The action is also surprisingly compelling, as Singh rarely falls in the trap of filming so close as to obscure what is happening in front of you. Often the camera is set on a rail and follows Theseus as he fights dozens of enemies in a realistic, awe-inspiring sequences. It's refreshing to see action done in this manner, and while special effects can mask a number of things (body doubles, gore, etc), that it is so different from what other films offer is really what makes all the difference.

She may not be the best actress, but mama mia!

The acting would have probably been better, but the script as it is didn't leave a lot of room for silly things like "exposition" or "character development" when creating so much eye candy. Henry Cavill is at least interesting as the film's lead, finding himself perhaps on the same page Sam Worthington found himself last year. Theseus is a warrior first, orator second, and as such Cavill will be better remembered after Immortals for his rippling six pack rather than the flexibility of his tongue (get your minds out of the gutter). Still, it took Worthington a full year and The Debt to prove he could really act, and maybe Cavill just needs that time to build a resume before he can be relegated to action roles. Freida Pinto once again is better than some, worse than others, and it's really her looks that secure the multitude of roles that she has landed of late. But as any veteran actress will tell you, beauty fades (and plastic surgery isn't always for the better), so unless she ups her game the big roles WILL dry up. She does show potential, so hopefully experience will get her to the level where she should be. Mickey Rourke is certainly effective in the role of evil overlord, but in all honesty he doesn't stretch very far from his comfort zone. It's obvious that the part was written with him in mind, as he never gets a moment like the one in last year's The Expendables in which he reminds us that he really is a good actor. Stephen Dorff could have stood out, but in the end we all realize that he's the witty sidekick who will doubtlessly die heroically in the end. And he's not even that good at the witty part.

One of these things is not like the others...

Possibly most disappointing is that the Gods, arguably the most central figures in this film, are barely covered as characters throughout the course of the film. Luke Evans tells the others what to do a lot, so that makes him Zeus, and we know that Isabel Lucas is Athena because someone calls her that once, but the others are never actually named and we can only guess as to their identities. Kellan Lutz MIGHT be Posiedon, since he carries around a trident, but we're not really sure. And who knows who any of the other immortals really are. It's a shame since the finale sees a raging battle between Gods and Titans that  is amazing but in which it would have been great to be able to keep score. But since they mostly look alike, the effort to introduce them as actual characters is completely lost.

"Man of Steel" is of course a euphemism

Still, when what you're expecting is an action-packed pseudo-myth with mood, violence and gore-a-plenty, it's hard to argue with what the film doesn't additionally give you. While it may not be the best movie of 2011 (or even close), Immortals is at its best an exciting, go-anywhere story that feels as epic as it seeks to be. If you're into the genre, don't wait until DVD; the visuals alone make it worth seeing on the big screen, even if you (wisely) forgo the entire 3D routine.

All for One, One for the Junk Pile

Like most people, I have a day job. It’s not my first love, but it IS how I pay the bills. There are days where I love my day job, with my daily interaction with co-workers, employees and managers keeping me fresh and on my toes. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes my day job can beat me down so badly that I’m desperate for any respite, any calm in the storm. This past Friday was one such day, on which I left work frazzled, tired and just a little out of my mind. On days like this, I feel that a good dumb movie can help to raise beleaguered spirits and help one feel better by forgetting all the stresses of the day. On this particular Friday, I went to see The Three Musketeers, in 3D.

“But, Mr. Anderson,” you’re saying with polite reverence, “You said GOOD dumb movies. The Three Musketeers looks like utter crap! And you hate 3D, you complain about it all the time!”

You’re not half wrong there. From my first viewing of the film’s trailer, I was quite certain that there would be little to no redeeming value left in the finished product. The title, the third major film based on the novel by French author Alexandre Dumas in the past two decades, looked to incorporate style over substance, with little explanation as to not only why a new adaptation was ever needed, but why on Earth It would need to be shown in 3D. As many of my readers already know, I abhor most 3D films with VERY few exceptions, as often the overhyped technology is too much money spent to far little effect. But, lately I admit that for several reasons I have developed a soft spot for this obvious car wreck. The first was director Paul W. S. Anderson (no relation), whose 2010 franchise sequel Resident Evil: Afterlife was one of the few 3D movies I absolutely loved. The reason for my appreciation was that Anderson actually filmed using the same technology that pioneer James Cameron did in Avatar, the title that reinvigorated the 3D discussion. Using Cameron’s RealD 3D technology, Anderson created the perfect comeback to a franchise that had struggled creatively in its previous outings. As such, this is a man who obviously knows how 3D technology is supposed to work in this day and age of modern wonders. Another reason was the casting. Unknown Musketeers aside, the care in choosing several secondary roles was key. Between the obvious casting decisions (Christoph Waltz as the evil Cardinal Richelieu) and those strangely against type (Orlando Bloom as a heavy), Three Musketeers hosted a surprising bevy of talent on its roster. And don’t forget Anderson’s wife Milla Jovovich as turncoat Millady de Winter. Sure, Jovovich isn’t the best actress out there, but she’s a gamer who does all that is asked of her and appeals to the audiences of her films thanks to her professionalism and obvious sex appeal. For these reasons I was willing to offer the film a mulligan, hoping for something that would outshine its obvious flaws.

Well, one of you is going to have to go

When Musketeer hopeful D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman) travels to Paris to join the King’s elite soldiers, the events that follow are very similar to that of the novel, as he makes early enemies of former Musketeers Athos (Matthew MacFayden), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans), only to team up with the trio against the soldiers of Cardinal Richelieu (Waltz), the man secretly ruling France while misleading the young King Louis XIII into believing he is in full control. Athos, Porthos and Aramis were removed from the Musketeers after being betrayed by Athos’ lover Milady (Jovovich), a double agent for the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). Soon the four become privy to the plots of Richelieu, who has devised a plan to send France and England towards war, with the ultimate end of him in total command of the country. It is up to the four warriors to take up the challenge and fight soldiers on both sides to save France and their King.

Shouldn't have brought a cutlass to a flintlock pistol fight

Of course, that spectacle I mentioned earlier never really comes to pass. The Three Musketeers is about as far from a great movie as you can get without being downright horrible, but Anderson does manage to make it a close call as he tries to create an adaptation of the classic tale with as much spectacle and fury as he can muster while failing on just about every conceivable level. It doesn’t help that Anderson feels out of his element when taking on this classic novel, incorporating steampunk elements (such as airships) where none were really should have been needed. For the most part the implementation of 3D was wasted, surprising and disappointing considering Anderson’s previous experience with the technology. Anyone who has seen the shower scene in Resident Evil: Afterlife knows how amazing 3D could actually look (get your minds out of the gutter), and I was expecting more of that ingenuity here. Unfortunately, that doesn’t show itself except for a brief instance towards the end featuring dueling airships. Worse, it’s nowhere near as entertaining, as there is very little that could excite small children, let alone the young adults that are the film’s target audience.

Kissing the hand was scandalous ENOUGH

At least the film has solid acting, which was much more than I could have expected. The Musketeers themselves are all standouts, as MacFayden, Stevenson and Evans proudly play their roles to great effectiveness. Between the dour Athos, the proud and Strong Porthos, and the pious Aramis, the tiny shred of personality that the film possesses shines brightly. It’s a shame then that the three get relatively little face time, especially Porthos and Aramis, who get a few moments to impress but not nearly enough. Instead we see others pushed to the forefront, and those are unfortunately nowhere near as artistically stimulating. Despite his talents and seemingly a natural choice for the role, Waltz’s Richelieu is a disappointment, too campy and unthreatening even to adequately chew scenery. Despite being the film’s central antagonist, he gives far too much ground to his underlings, especially Mads Mikkelsen as the petty and cruel Captain Rochefort. Logan Lerman has no business headlining ANY film, let alone a potential blockbuster. His bland recitation of dialogue is one of the film’s main flaws, and with too much attention on him this is far too noticeable a one. Jovovich was in fact a mixed bag, with Milady’s impressive… um… “talents” often overshadowed by not even an attempt at actual acting. However, one that surprisingly stood out to me was Orlando Bloom, playing the snide and clever Duke of Buckingham. Bloom, who usually plays upstanding and generally friendly characters, is so out of place here that it gives the film a new lift whenever he is on screen. Sadly, whereas The Three Musketeers has only one Orlando Bloom, it could have used three or four more. He’s on screen far too little as a secondary villain to be a serious nuisance, though he comes off as more diabolical than Richelieu when given the chance.

I'm sorry, did you say something? I was staring at your chest

Despite some clever jabs that catch you off guard and tickle your funny bone, there isn’t a whole lot to recommend in seeing The Three Musketeers in the theater. The film’s saving grace was supposed to be Anderson’s 3D implementation, but with that being less than stellar, the title had to actually rely on the script and its performers to get by. The result is an un-clever stupid movie that might be decent for mindless fun, if your definition of “fun” is far more subjective than mine. A few good moments do not a movie make, and so I can’t bring myself to actually recommend this title to anyone. If you decide to ignore me and DO go to see The Three Musketeers, at least do yourself the favor of skipping the 3D showings. They, like another Musketeers adaptation, are thoroughly unneeded.