Pluskylang Great Film overall

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

avrumeleh I had the good fortune to watch this film. The story is engaging and the acting was...well, given the difference from today's acting to which I, like many others, are used...nevertheless just fine, even if of the kind we might expect to see in a silent action/adventure. Fairbanks is interesting and enthusiastic and whether or not he throws his arms up more than, in reality, any human being in his role's shoes would, is wonderful throughout the film. But, one thing that captured my attention even more than all the rest is the set and scenery. Filmed entirely in the USA, using a studio for its sets, it strikingly, consistently captures the atmosphere and feeling of Paris and other places in France, indoors and out, that one would expect for the 17th century times during which the story takes place. It actually would, I think, appear to any reasonable eye to have been filmed in real time. This is cinema at its very best in that regard, not to mention others. Fabulous...just fabulous in every detail.

MartinHafer I think how much you'll enjoy the film will be impacted on how closely you want the film to follow the book (which it doesn't) as well as whether or not you've seen many of Douglas Fairbanks' films. What I mean by the latter is that I think my expectations were way too high for this movie because I expected a VERY physical and athletic film--but it wasn't. This was a HUGE surprise because Fairbanks was known for his amazing stunts--such as in "Thief of Bagdad" or "The Mark of Zorro". I expected to see his great leaps and bounds--but there just weren't very many athletic scenes. Now this is NOT to say that it's a bad film--it's still pretty good. It's just that I think it could have been a lot better. Enjoyable but not among the actor's best films--though the costumes and sets were pretty amazing for 1921.By the way, the version I saw was the one in the public domain that is linked to IMDb. Oddly, this version has reversed the last two reels of the film!! In other words, it ends and then continues! I am not sure if you can find a corrected version or not.

barbb1953 This is the best Fairbanks costume drama I've seen in terms of his agility, the dialogue, quality of action scenes and acting, and set. He just seemed to have it all together with this one, with his character's physical qualities impressing the King and a surprisingly deft battle of wits with Cardinal Richielieu impressing that dangerous man. It is said Fairbanks was a huge fan of Dumas, and indeed he showed deep enough acquaintance with the original "Three Musketeers" to successfully keep the original feel of the book (particularly the last section) while neatly cleaning it to be acceptable to 1920s morals (the Twenties may have roared, but they weren't yet ready for the Executioner of Lille; the darker side of Milady and Athos; Constance's infidelity and tragic end; the anti-Puritan stereotyping; D'Artagnan's becoming not just the talk of Paris but that city's most popular and busy lover of high-society ladies, including just about everybody but the Queen), and so forth.The original three musketeers did much to keep all that subplot going, and this may be why Fairbanks gives them relatively little to do in the movie. Too, he seems to be focusing on the latter part of the book where D'Artagnan does come to the fore, though if anything, he toned down D'Artagnan's role, too (if you haven't read the book, you're in an over-the-top tour de force, believe me!).Anyway, the physical performances by Fairbanks that stand out here include, of course, the famous left-handed handspring during the duel (in which we learn what happens when the bad guy, not Indiana Jones, brings a gun to a sword fight); the horsemanship Doug displays; the skill shown in the fencing scenes (he had come a long way from "Mark Of Zorro," which was not bad either); and the general agility he shows whether he's leaping into a cupboard or through a window or tiptoeing across the tip of a rooftop with a damsel in distress on his shoulder. Two sword-fights that stand out, besides the duel, are the one in the apothecary's shop, where not a single jar or bottle is broken in spite of the general mayhem going on between D'Artagnan and the Cardinal's best swordsman, and the scene where Fairbanks squares off against Milady (is this the only scene where Douglas Fairbanks fought a woman?).

Kevin Clarke After admiring Douglas Fairbank's smashing looks in the later THIEF OF BAGDAD, I have to say he looks extremely unattractive in these pseudo-historical French costumes and a wig you wonder where he got it from. And not only does he as the star attraction look bad - the French queen (for one) is just as terrible with an equally terrible wig. Not to mention the Three Musketeers: stout, unsporty, unfunny. I wonder if in 1921 this was considered 'attractive'? (I very much doubt it.) Still, some of the scenes are fun to watch, even at epic length (more than two hours running time.) I guess with the right symphonic live music it must have been impressive back then. With cheap (and thin sounding) computer music as a soundtrack on DVD today, it is... a bit dreary. (Sadly.)Interstingly, there is a 1929 stage operetta of the same title by Benatzky/Charell created for Berlin (and recently revived in Nordhausen, Germany), that makes interesing comparison with this film - whole scenes have been taken 1:1 from it. Only with better music attached to it. It would be fun to see the film with a Benatzky-based soundtrack!