GamerTab That was an excellent one.

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

MARIO GAUCI Since the copy I acquired of this film bears the year of copyright as 1977, I can only assume it was delayed by 2 years because it was preceded by the 1977 TV version of THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK – given that the title under review is merely another adaptation of this classic Alexandre Dumas tale! Made on a grand scale, with a large and international star-studded cast, the film apparently intended to ape the jokey style of Richard Lester's recent two-part (1973/1974) rendition of Dumas' "The Three Musketeers". However, director Annakin was too much of an old-style film-maker to make that work and, in any case, his handling is generally uninspired – merely content to let the script (reworking James Whale's superior 1939 version!), the actors and Jack Cardiff's gorgeous color photography tell the tale, as it were (aided, of course, by Riz Ortolani's suitably rousing score).Amusingly, top billing here goes to the ladies: heroine Sylvia Kristel (fresh off the erotic "Emmanuelle" series, she even gets away with some very mild nudity!) and villainess Ursula Andress (at the tail-end of her stardom really but surprisingly enthusiastic). Incidentally, one of the novelties here is that Andress' Mademoiselle La Valliere (I was not familiar with the character when I encountered her in J. Sheridan LeFanu's "The Room In The Dragon Volant", which I subsequently turned into a script!) gets much more screen-time than her equivalent in the 1939 'original'; indeed, the two women have a number of confrontations throughout – notably when Andress sets a falcon on Kristal. The male lead, however, was a gross miscalculation as Beau Bridges' style of acting is too modern to pass muster in a period romp and in this company (though he must have relished getting close to two beauties such as he is flanked by here)! A measure of the (cynical) times, however, is the fact that the assassination attempt on the King (for which, being aware of it, he has deliberately sent his unwitting twin) resolves itself not by a persuasively sympathetic speech as in the 1939 version but rather a full-bloodied yet highly improbable action sequence! The Four Musketeers, then, are played up as much older than in the earlier version (they still get involved in plenty of derring-do but only 2 expire at the end): Cornel Wilde is D'Artagnan, Jose' Ferrer Athos, Lloyd Bridges (yes, Beau's dad!) Aramis and Alan Hale Jr. in his own real-life father's old role as Porthos – interestingly, 27 years prior to this, Wilde and Hale had appeared together in a similar swashbuckler, actually playing the sons of their respective characters here, AT SWORD'S POINT (1952)! Likewise, an over-age Rex Harrison 'replaces' Walter Kingsford as the Musketeers' court insider – though the muddled script fails to properly explain the reason behind the beating he receives towards the end! Ian McShane, on the other hand, is perhaps too young for the villainous Fouquet and, again, he emanates from a school of acting which jars with the rest of his colleagues (though he is certainly fun to watch). Olivia De Havilland (in her final theatrical appearance), then, is something of an embarrassment – popping up in a couple of scenes (confronting one Bridges and acknowledging another) as the former Queen-turned-Nun and Bernard Bresslaw (who seems to have strayed in from the "Carry On" series) is a blind inn-keeper! The prologue depicting the children's birth and enforced separation has been dropped here – presumably to instill an air of mystery into the proceedings; oddly, too, the all-important mask is given an impossibly clunky design (looking very much like a cooking-pot!). Finally, I have just realized that the version of the film I acquired and watched was 13 minutes short of the full-length running-time!

suchenwi Most of the 9 comments I see here are negative to Luke-warm at best. So I beg to disagree and tell why I liked this film.Firstly, I haven't seen other renderings of the story, except for the Australian Burbank animation (1985), which I also cherished (for different reasons, of course). In fact, that anime made me read up on Wikipedia about the complex back stories, fiction and true, and after that I re-watched this Beau Bridges piece.I found him convincing both as Philippe and Louis XIV, and was thrilled by their duel on the shaky bridge (both dressed similarly, I was briefly on the edge of my seat).Then there's the ladies, who in my European cut expose interesting body parts, and when dressed still deliver strong emotions.But the roles that grabbed me most were Colbert and Fouqué, with their wheelings and dealings, mostly wrapped in courtly etiquette - quite fascinating. In contrast, the name-brand musketeers did not catch my attention so much.Finally, what detracted me most was the mismatch of the French dub and subtitles (DVD labeled Bakker 7812/773). In Vienna, Austria, the film was produced in English, but I wanted the "native" language - though very often I was astonished how many phrases can be translated differently to French, starting from "Je vous en prie" (dub) vs. "s'il vous plait" (subtitle). So I didn't get the convenient read-along experience I had hoped for. But all in all, I really enjoyed this film. And Sylvia Kristel impressed me quite much as Spanish royalty.

Neil Doyle It's strange that THE FIFTH MUSKETEER leaves me with the impression that it's hardly worth watching despite a stellar cast and some gorgeous Austrian scenery. BEAU BRIDGES (in a dual role as a commoner and Louis XIV) does a competent but bland job in the film's major role, while assorted guest stars fill the supporting cast with some name value. One of the guest stars is OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND who might just as well have phoned in her role. She has about three minutes of screen time, at the most.None of the main roles are really fleshed out and the plot is a muddled mess. JOSE FERRER, CORNEL WILDE, ALAN HALE, JR. and LLOYD BRIDGES are competent enough as the four musketeers while REX HARRISON and HELMUT DANTINE merely add some name recognition to the cast, as does de Havilland in her tiny role as Queen Anne (about whom little is explained).It's a retread of familiar material done much better in the past, territory that would be revisited in the future with even more dash and vigor. A sleep inducing film that probably only gets male attention because URSULA ANDRESS and SYLVIA KRISTEL provide some feminine pulchritude in provocative period costumes.The most unforgivable aspect are the fight scenes of the swashbuckling kind but badly choreographed duels, unlike the sort of thing done so splendidly in the Flynn epics. The blades flash without much flourish.Summing up: Totally uninspired piece of work notable only for some lavish costumes and good location photography in Austria.

Stefan Kahrs In many ways, this is an unnecessary re-telling of a story we have seen realized many times before (and since), and often filmed better. It was certainly not Beau Bridges's finest hour.What was unusual and certainly the major selling point of the film was that the leading ladies (Andress and Kristel) would shed their clothes on quite a few occasions. As this film's US rating is PG and as the American running time is 12 minutes shorter than the British 15-rated release (which is the one I saw) it is highly likely that most if not all nudity was cut from the American version. Which is a shame as this is the only proper reason to watch this film.