corinzotica
The show is well made, the sets are beautiful but I see that political correctness has had its hand in the production of the show. It goes far from the books plot and the show makes an obvious attempt at placing race mixing on a pedestal even though that is not goal it should aim for. It does not respect the timeline that the show was put in. Having slaves was not appalling in those day and ages as the musketeers themselves had 'indentured servants'. The action is good but because of the aspects described above it only merits a 5/10. If not for political correctness it would have been a 9/10
Jorge Guerreiro
Let's get some things out of the way first: the costumes and wardrobe were gorgeous, the scenery and settings were very accurate and the portrayal of early XVII century France is true to history. The acting was solid and had some truly above average actors behind the characters. The action scenes were great and historically detailed, with the added bonus of being very well shot.That being said, two things kept me from enjoying this series to the fullest: the abuse of deus ex machina and other plot devices, and the badly written, ridiculously predictable story lines.WARNING - Spoilers coming, so avoid them if you haven't finished watching the series.The evil prime-minister conspiring to overthrow the king was already overused in the 80s, to the point of Blackadder making a joke out of it. That didn't stopped it from happening in many works of fiction over the last decades, but The Musketeers take this TV Trope a step too far with all three prime-ministers being the main villain for the respective season. I dare to say that if we had another five seasons we would have had another five evil prime-ministers. It got old on the second season, let alone the third… Then the erratic, buffoon of a king, Louis XIII... It's no secret that European monarchs weren't always the cream of the crop. The amount of inbreeding between royal houses assured that. But XVII century is not the dark ages anymore, when illiterate kings who raped peasants for sport and could barely speak were common. By this time kings were highly trained in matters of state, literature, diplomacy and warfare.Yet Louis XIII is dumb as a bag of hammers. Not only that, he changes his disposition from episode to episode for no reason. One day he's thankful to the musketeers and the next he can't stand them. One day he loves the queen but then he's cold to her the next week. In other words, he is what the plot (or better, the writers) needs him to be.With that said, barely any character has a story arch or shows any changes over the 30 episodes of the series. Aramis, d'Artagnan, Athos, queen Anne and Constance Bonacieux are the only characters that actually show some character growth. The others pretty much remain static. This is done to a degree that most episodes could be watched randomly, as there aren't ramifications from episode to episode. Sure, the characters acknowledge what has happened before, but it is not shown nor it affects anything.This leads us to the story lines. The threat of the week was the standard format for TV series decades ago. Then shows like Babylon 5, Stargate, Buffy and many others demonstrated that viewers could be expected to follow stories and story arcs for multiple seasons, and that not all television needed to be done in a format where the order in which the episodes are viewed is irrelevant, since nothing ever changes besides the new story of each episode. The musketeers goes back in time and has a format that would have been standard in the 80s and early 90s, with only the final two episodes of the season showing any ramifications for what has happened so far.Finally, everything tends to be presented in black or white. Bad guys are Disney-like villains, good guys are heroes of great integrity and character. There's no grey, no relatable antagonists, no middle ground. The show pretty much tells you for whom to cheer, whom to like and whom to dislike.In conclusion: this show had everything to be great except for the writers. Even though the writing crew changed in the end of the first season, the show remained the same. The writers had great material to work with and they watered it down to a (extremely) dumbed version of what this show could be. I'm still in my 20s and I felt like I was 15 years too old to be enjoying this show. The saddest part is that, when we consider the material written by Dumas, this is almost unforgivable. In other words, the writing was fitting for a cartoon or a Disney Channel show, not for a BBC series.Thus I give it 7/10 because I can't give it 6,5. But it's the lowest 7 that can be given, all thanks to the writing.Watch it if its on, but don't expect anything above average.
nits_ss
saw this series over the weekend binging over Christmas. Being a big novelist and avid fan of Dumas novels , immediately liked this series. While it tends to feel-good drama with be clichéd and cheesy in some aspects , has a fresh breath of air with amazing portrayal of characters from lead actors along with keen comic timing. Hoping that this series can turn on the same scale as the Vikings, Game of thrones etc. Want more villains in the series going fwd. I hope the creators reduce the cheesiness and delve further into depth of characters of the Musketeers and their devotion to the king and country . Cannot wait to see series 3. enjoyed!
venkatasudheery
For first time I'm compelled to write this review,Aramis bangs Queen, then Queen gives birth to son and says he is heir to throne? and kills the Rochefort who wants to take advantage.This show made the French king moron and idiot, I mean he is king and 4 people can come up to him right from main entrance!!!!are Muskateers protecting king or protecting themselves by denying the the truth?my god the series, its reviews for third season, seriously?All this story has sublime stories ad how easily the 5 people defeat anyone in the entire garrison.
