The books of Alexandre Dumas (not pronounced dumb ass) are ripe for adaptation into movies. They’re chock full off swashbuckling action, damsels in distress, well rounded characters and revenge, perfect movie fodder. Dumas’ Musketeer trilogy of books (The Three Musketeers, Twenty Years Later & The Man in the Iron Mask) has perhaps seen the most movie adaptations, this being the most recent.

The most recent it may be, but far from the best is how it turns out. There is a simple rule that all Musketeer films must follow. It has to be better than Richard Lester’s 1973 version. His The Three Musketeers (and its sequel The Four Musketeers) sets the standard for which all other Musketeer films will be judged. Even some 30 years later Lester’s film is smart, funny, well acted and a whole lot of fun. Peter Hyams’ The Musketeer on the other hand is miscast, unfocused, and poorly directed.

I’ll come to all the bad stuff later; I’ll run through what did work in the film first. Tim Roth is definitely the films biggest plus point. You could rightly say that he is repeating the role he had in Rob Roy, but when he is so deliciously evil and underhand you can’t really complain. Roth plays the bad guy with such zeal that is always a delight to watch. Also good as far as the casting goes is Stephen Rea as Richelieu. He may have little screen time, but an actor of his calibre always lights up the screen, even in the smallest of roles.

About the only other thing going for the film is the unorthodox fight choreography. Since this is a musketeer film you would rightly expect some classy fight scenes, but this film ups the bar and introduces Eastern style fighting choreography. Wires are used liberally and many of the fight scenes stunts are well outside the realms of possibility. Chuck in some Jackie Chan style prop improvisation and you have what makes for some implausible, but entertaining action.

What a shame then that director Peter Hyams clearly has no idea whatsoever how to shoot it. He is also credited as the DP on this film so he has nowhere to hide when the blame is being handed out. The action is all filmed in either ridiculously wide shots or in close up. The consequence is that for long periods you have little or no idea what is going on. The most ludicrous instance of this is in the final duel which takes place on top of about a half dozen ladders. Hyams’ shooting style means that when the killing blow was dealt I had no idea how it happened and had to rewind the DVD to see what I missed.

As good as the casting of the villains is the casting of the heroes is woefully inadequate. Justin Chambers plays D’Artagnan and is the films lead. Which is a bit of problem considering the man is clearly unable to act. He wanders about the film trying to look brooding and heroic, but never convinces. Worse is his romantic interest, Mena Suvari. The actress with the biggest forehead in Hollywood [tm] is horribly miscast here. She can just about pull of the spoilt American teenager routine, but put her in a corset and she is out of her depth.

Just as the name of the film has been changed to merely The Musketeer, so has the role of the Musketeers in the film been diminished. The three musketeers in this film occupy what is nothing more than an extended cameo as the film concentrates (unwisely) on D’Artagnan. It is also a shame that such charismatic roles have been filled by no-mark unknowns. The only one I recognised is Nick Moran as Aramis, whom is an abysmal actor, just terrible. It makes you weep when you think of the great actors who occupied these roles in Lester’s film and compare them with the crap in this version…..

I could go and on, but it serves no purpose. Suffice to say I was disheartened by the absence of Milady De Winter and also by D’Aratgnan’s introductions to the Musketeer’s. I love the way they meet in Lester’s film. He bumps into them all individually and challenges them all to a duel that night, classic stuff. In this film he meets them in a bar, and well, that’s it, yawn…..