The Three Musketeers

The Three Musketeers
Douglas Fairbanks established himself as the first action hero in a series of lavish, action-packed adventures beginning with The Mark of Zorro in 1920. The next year Fairbanks called on the director of that success, Fred Niblo, to direct him in the even more ambitious The Three Musketeers, a swashbuckling costume classic packed with romance, knockabout humor, and Fairbanks's patented brand of gymnastic action. In a perfect match with his exuberantly cocky personality, Fairbanks plays the naive but gifted son of an impoverished nobleman who goes to Paris to seek his fame in the legendary king's guards, known as the Musketeers. The quick-tempered hick is easy to rile and immediately secures duels with the best swordsmen in France, the infamous Three Musketeers, before bonding with them in a brawling fight with the Cardinal's men. Meanwhile, the conniving Cardinal plots to humiliate the Queen and gain the ear of the foppish, easily manipulated King (Adolphe Menjou). The complicated plot introduces more characters than one can easily keep track of and Niblo tends toward static, airy setups that show off the spectacular sets, relying on the bounding energy of human dynamo Fairbanks to create the energy, which he does with cocksure confidence and a smile simultaneously generous, genuine, and just a little smug. Fairbank's version is a veritable blueprint for Richard Lester's excellent 1974 remake. --Sean Axmaker
Customer Review: Not the best Fairbanks
This is the third Fairbanks movie I've seen and quite frankly this is not really that good. It pales when compared to Robin Hood and especially Thief of Bagdad. The movie is too fragmented and needs way too many textboards to keep viewers up to par with the story. Fairbanks is fun to watch and when he's on screen he dominates. However,'presence' is not the same as acting. Fairbanks, and therefore the movie, is way too dependent on farcical comedy. At times the movie even edges dangerously close to a vaudeville act. Also his 'swashbuckling' in this movie amounts to not much more than just wildly wacking away with his sword. Maybe I saw it too soon after the hugely superior Thief of Bagdad....
Customer Review: Part action-adventure, part costume drama
While this is ultimately an enjoyable and fulfilling film, I don't think it's perhaps the most ideal first Douglas Fairbanks film for a new fan, nor an ideal first silent either. Because it was based on a novel, naturally a lot of things were condensed or left out entirely. This works two ways; those who have read the book and loved it will be upset that a lot of key elements were left out, and those who haven't read the book yet won't always be able to fully understand what's going on. And since it was based on a novel, it is a bit chatty for a silent, with numerous lengthy intertitles. Because there are so many characters, it's kind of hard to keep track of who's whom; the numerous plotlines can also be a bit hard to keep track of. A condensed version of the rather complex plot is that the picture starts with King Louis XIII (Adolphe Menjou before he became a big star) and his wife Anne of Austria (the rather doughy-faced Mary MacLaren). These two didn't exactly have the happiest of marriages, and I'll never forget my AP European History teacher, my sophomore year of highschool, telling us the story about how if it hadn't been for a certain thunderstorm one evening that forced the unhappily wed couple to take refuge in a cabin, there would have been no Louis XIV. Louis XIII's scheming right-hand man Cardinal Richelieu thinks he's going to expose the affair Anne has been having with Duke Buckingham of England (George Villiers, who was notoriously sleazy, corrupt, and hated in real life, so much so he was later assassinated), but Anne is tipped off to his plan and manages to stay one step ahead of him, though it becomes hard to conceal her secret from her husband, particularly after she gives Buckingham a farewell token of a diamond buckle her husband gave her, a buckle Louis XIII later demands she wear to a ball. Intersecting with this rather convoluted costume drama is the story of brash young D'Artagnan (Douglas Fairbanks), who leaves home hoping to become a member of the legendary Musketeers, Porthos, Athos, and Aramis. D'Artagnan is very hot-headed, willing to fight and duel at the drop of a hat, and makes himself several enemies before he even gets to Paris. D'Artagnan wins the respect and friendship of the Musketeers and is allowed to fight alongside them. While he is living in Paris, he falls in love with Constance, his innkeeper's pretty daughter (Marguerite de la Motte, his leading lady in a number of his early films). The two main plots intersect when the Queen has D'Artagnan and the Musketeers dispatched to go to England to get back her diamond buckle in time for the ball, so that her honor will not be besmirched. This final part of the movie is the most action-packed, suspenseful, and compelling. Douglas Fairbanks was best at swashbuckling, action, and adventure, and there's enough of it to go around here, even when he's in period costume and held back from completely taking center stage due to all of the other characters. (And when he is onscreen, he's constantly in motion and stealing the scene.) Although a lot of character development and themes from the book had to be left out, one doesn't usually watch Doug's movies for things like those. One watches his movies for exciting action and adventure; things like character development and deep meaningful themes are secondary concerns. He might not have been a *great* actor necessarily, but he did have an incredible amount of charm, charisma, personality, and screen presence to make up for it. However, as good as the film is, it's not really the most ideal introduction to Fairbanks, what with all of the twists and turns in the story, all of the different plots and characters to keep track of, and the fact that it's quite chatty, which usually doesn't work for a silent. And coupled with those reasons, I've just never been very interested in 17th century history (actually I find that era kind of boring), which is when this takes place.