Its 1649 Mazarin hires the impoverished DArtagnan to find the other musketeers Cromwell has overthrown the English king, so Mazarin fears revolt, particularly from the popular Beaufort. Porthos, bored with riches and wanting a title, signs on, but Aramis, an abb
|The Return of the Musketeers Movie(DivX)||Resolution: 528x288 px||Total Size: 700 Mb|
|The Return of the Musketeers Movie(iPod)||Resolution: 480x256 px||Total Size: 369 Mb||
We have taken some photos of "The Return of the Musketeers". They represent actual movie quality.
Watching "Return Of The Musketeers" is a depressing affair. First off,Roy Kinner (As Planchet, D'Artangnan's loyal sidekick)died while doinga riding stunt (At least they dedicated the film to him). Second, thefilm just doesn't capture the glory days of the 2 previous films. Maybethat's the point: you can't go home again. D'Artangnan (Michael York,one of the reasons to try to stick with it.)is still a Musketeer(Although an impoverished one)and is recruited to try to find theremaining Musketeers for one last "All For One, and One for All." Thisis where the film starts to fall apart. First of all, RichardChamberlain (As Aramis)is not in the film all that much, the lateOliver Reed (As Athos)looks like he doesn't want to be there, and FrankFinlay (As Porthos)seems to be along for the ride. Second, there issome serious miscasting in the likes of C. Thomas Howell as Raoul,Athos' son. He shouldn't be in this film, because he just seems to dragit down. As does Kim Cattrall as Justine de Winter, the daughter of thelate Milady (We miss you, Faye Dunaway!)out for revenge. Stick to thefirst 2 instead and totally forget this disaster.
The Return of the Muketeers marks the reunion of the cast of the bestadaptation of Dumas' novel. Here, they take up the story of the sequel, TheTwenty Years After. Unfortunately, it would mark the untimely end of thelife and wonderful career of actor Roy Kinnear. Ironically, the tragedy isin keeping with the darker tone of the novel.Spoliers-D'Artagnan is still a lieutenant in the King's Musketeers, hiscompanions having retired to estates and abbeys. D'Artagnan finds himselftasked by Cardinal Mazarin to undermine the rebellion of Beufort and theFrondists. He also finds himself the target of Milady's legacy; her evildaughter.The film starts out a bit slow, seemingly having trouble finding itsfooting. It picks up when the other Musketeers enter the picture and as thefilm progresses. Unfortunately, the tragic accident suffered by Roy Kinnearcasts a palor over the ending.The original cast is as good now as in the original films. Philippe Noiretwas a fine addition as Mazarin. Jean-Pierre Cassel returns, this time asCyrano De Bergerac. Kim Cattrall is a mixed bag; she has some good moments,but her overall performance is lacking. C. Thomas Howell is completelyforgettable as Athos' son, Raoul.Part of the problem with this film is that Mazarin never seems as formidableas Richelieu and Cattrall is a poor caricature of Faye Dunaway. Thescheming nature of Aramis is nicely illustrated by Richard Chamberlain, andFrank Finlay provides a wonderful turn as Porthos. Oliver Reed was slidingquickly into the depths of his career at this point, but he has many finemoments.One wonders if the film would have been better without the tragedy thatbefell it? Certainly, it affected the actors' performances. Still, thescript was a bit lacking and budgetary restraints did hurt as well. It wouldhave been interesting to see the group tackle the final Musketeerinstallment, The Man in the Iron Mask. They certainly could have improvedupon the Randall Wallace version. All-in-all, the film is fineentertainment for a quiet evening or a rainy weekend.One note of trivia: Philippe Noiret would later play D'Artagnan in BertrandTavernier's Revenge of the Musketeers.
This is the third installment of the Richard Lester Musketeer's films. Based largely of Dumas' "Twenty Years Later," Lester was able to gather the original cast like Michael York, Oliver Reed, Frank Finlay, and Christopher Lee to name a few. Chamberlain also is in the film and new additions are C. Thomas Howell and Kim Catrall. York and Reed give strong performances. Finlay is again in great form as well as is Christopher Lee. Howell and Catrall give fine performances but lack the same chemistry as the original cast.Lester still loves the action-slapstick comedy routine and for the most part it works, but on a lesser scale than the first two. The fight scenes are delivered well enough but this film never gives the same great action/romantic adventure as the others and therefore waarents a three stars. It is good enough to watch once, but unlike the first two, which can be viewed over and over again, never beckens the viewer to return to this movie.
I am sure I will be shot down in flames but I believe that this thirdone was cobbled together with shots left over from the first two andsome newly reshot material with the original stars, hence the narrativepassages and the chaotic and muddled storyline. I just adored the firsttwo and could not believe how much I was disappointed with this one. Iunderstand that the stars had disputed the release of the second movieas they believed they were only making one movie and they were stiffedon payment for it. At the time of the original releases the treatmentof the dialogue and action scenes were pure genius and trulyinnovative. I still remember the hairs standing up on the back of myneck at the first film's opening credit's swordplay. The third moviedeserved more time spent on it and a lot more new material. It was sucha great shame that Roy Kinnear had to lose his life completing a shotthat a double would normally do. He was an important part of the firsttwo movies. Richard Lester has always been an original andidiosyncratic director, much underrated in my opinion.
This review is from: The Return of the Musketeers [VHS] (VHS Tape) Yes, this loose version of Dumas' "Twenty Years After" doesn't reach the heights of the original Richard Lester-directed films (The Three and Four Musketeers), but it is not without its charms, not the least of which is Kim Cattrall as a stunning yet deadly swordswoman who is bent on revenge on the musketeers for the death of her mother (Milady de Winter) in the earlier films. Most of the surviving characters are back, and the team of Lester and scripter George Macdonald Fraser (the Flashman books) is still capable of hitting a few out of the park. But this film seems, like the musketeers themselves, older and more tired. The jokes aren't quite as zingy, the action not quite as inventive, the score not as propulsive, and the scheming Cardinal Mazarin is no match for Charlton Heston's masterful Richelieu. But "Return" is still a hundred times better than the norm for this genre. Cattrall's villainess is one of the great cinematic female swashbucklers (she could give Xena a run for her dinars), and the film is mainly successful as a rollicking adventure, although the complicated court intrigue is not a very engaging plotline to those not familiar with the French politics of the time. Sadly, it was Roy Kinnear's last movie (he died in a riding accident during filming, and there are some awkward scenes that were shot around his absence), which casts a pall around the project and Lester's normal joie de vivre. But I still rate this highly, and recommend it (now that the price has been lowered). (But why the "R" rating? There is nothing worse in this than in the original films.)
I liked this movie (as well as the first two) alot. I remember reading ablurb in TIME back in '89 that the movie had just been completed andeagerlyawaited its release to see it on the big screen. Unfortunately the movienever made it to the theaters here (and I don't know if it did overseas,forthat matter), but premiered on USA cable network in late March of 1991.AsI watched it on a small hotel TV I saw a lot of great acting, andproduction, much like the first two films. All the actors appeared tolikebeing back into probably there best roles. The movie comes across with agreat deal of heart (and I had to chuckle at) as the characters frequentlyremark they're getting to old for the physical thrashing about. To sum up:very good and I'll give it a solid "B".
Surprisingly faithful depiction of Dumas' "Twenty Years After." Kim Kattrall provides a very formidable enemy for the reunited Musketeers, while the film itself provides an excellent excuse to bring back the original cast of director Richard Lester's Musketeer movies from the 1970s.Much of the same energy from these previous films is in this one. There are a few odd moments, and some of the changes from Dumas' original story-line are a bit irritating. But for the most part, Lester hasn't lost in this film his ability to portray slapstick swashbuckle, or his ability for showing how any given situation can evolve to the comically surreal.Among points to note are Geraldine Chaplin's excellent performance as Anne of Austria, and whose appearance in the film seems less the result of a casting director and more the result of a time machine ... she seems untouched by age.The film is also colored by the fact that Roy Kinnear - who played Planchet - was killed in an accident during filming. There were a couple of scenes that were obviously meant to include him and in which a double was employed, which makes one sad.While not the best film you'll ever see, it's quite enjoyable for fans of the first two movies. Admittedly, nostalgia plays a role in my opinions of this movie: it was good to see THIS particular cast once more portray the Four Musketeers.
This film, without having read the book, might be seen as a pleasantand enjoyable film full of comedy. Firstly, I did not laugh during allthe film. Secondly, I read the book. Whilst the previous films remainedrelatively faithful to the book, this one differs totally from thebook. My favorite character has always been Athos, who was the bravest,and the most intelligent of the musketeers. In the book, he had becomea respectable gentleman. When the musketeers began to fight againsteach other, Athos gave a wonderful speech about friendship. In thefilm, Athos is just a alcoholic fool who barely retains his prestige.Aramis does not even come back till the end. This film ruined Athos'scharacter. The film should have spent more time on Charles I'sexecution and how the musketeers fight to save him because we also seea pathetic attempt whereas in the book, they really tried and almostsucceeded in saving Charles Ist. I miss Mordaunt so much. He was scaryand much more villainous than Justine de Winter. I do not know why theproducer felt the need to change the gender of Milady's descendant butif it was just to add a romance between Raoul and Justine, it wasridiculous. We do not see very much Raoul in the book but he seems anice and intelligent guy. In the film, he was just a fool. The film,instead of adapting Alexandre Dumas's wonderful book, just ruins it.This is really a shame as I appreciated the two films done before.
This fun instalment of the Musketeers series (fifteen years after 'TheFour Musketeers' was released) reunites the original four cast members(Michael York still looking impossibly young as D'Artagnan, now in theKing's army; Oliver Reed on good form as Athos, now with a weedy sonRaoul (C Thomas Howell) who really doesn't need to be there; FrankFinlay in a very silly wig as Porthos and still accident prone; andRichard Chamberlain as Aramis, now an Abbe and the Queen's confessor,but ready (eventually) to join in the swordsplay).Kim Cattrall appears as Justine de Winter, daughter of Milady, and iscompletely inadequate. Making a return are Christopher Lee asRochefort, and Roy Kinnear (who died during filming) as long-sufferingservant Planchet; and fine additions to the cast include Alan Howard asOliver Cromwell, Bill Paterson as Charles I, Jean-Pierre Cassell asCyrano de Bergerac (an idiot who thinks geese will help him fly in aballoon to the moon) and Philippe Noiret as Mazarin.Is it as good as the 1970s instalments, also directed by Lester? Thesword fights are there (and also an hilarious scene involving trapdoorsin the rooms of Justine de Winter); there's the usual set of stunts andslapstick; and there's the darker sections - Athos remembering Milady,the execution of Charles I, the young French king imprisoned in theTower, the gunpowder-laden ship. For me the cast member who is most memorable (as in the earlier films)is Oliver Reed, in a perfect part which gives him chance to get lots ofreferences to alcohol in there (in one bit son Raoul offers him tea 'anew infusion', which Athos sprays out after a swig when being toldthere's no alcohol in it!), has him stuck in a castle window, andplummeting into a water tank from the punctured balloon. Aside from thefunny bits, he's at home with the serious stuff too - proving yet againthat he could act when he wanted to.There's lots in 'Return of the Musketeers' to brighten your day and itwas great to see the boys back for one last fling.
With a script and story just as good as the original films in the series,The Return of the Musketeers is only let down by the cheap humour made atthe expense of the physical inabilities of the now agedmusketeers.However, even this is done so that you cannot help laughing at it, and soleaves us with a little comic jewel of a film.In the UK this film has remained quite high profile as it marked the deathof Roy Kinnear, one of Britain's best and most beloved comic characteractors of all time, who died while falling off his horse during thefilmingof one of the horse-riding scenes, and his families pursuit ofcompensation.Kinnear's death does leave the rest of the cast visibly downcast on screenand brings down the end of the movie with an over all somber mood asKinnear's scenes are filled with a mixture of doubles and audiodubbing.However, this is still a very funny movie which is ideal for a late nightofnon-thinking entertainment.
French politics always have been a mess. The backdrop of "La Fronde" asthe French civil war was known, is difficult to explain. There were nogood or bad guys. The country was thrown into confusion and disarray.The challenge of adapting the second Dumas novel (as well as the third)is that there is no clear cut plot element to hang your hat on. Unlikethe race to get the jewels back from the first novel, "Twenty YearsLater" is rather episodic and dis-jointed. the musketeers are no longermusketeers and (in the novel) they are not even on the same side of thepolitical fence.The movie tries. There is an attempt at the levity of the previous twofilms. The screenwriters attempt to throw in a weird romance betweenAthos' son Raoul and Lady De Winter's daughter (an evil son in thebook). The writers also keep many of the major set pieces from the book(the fire ship plot against the heroes, the execution of Charles I, theescape of the prince of CondÃ©, etc.) but in the end the film has nospirit.Everyone involved must have dearly wanted to recapture the magic of thefirst two films. Lester was working under pressure on a televisionschedule and budget.In his autobiography Michael York describes how he looked forward tothe first day of shooting. The whole thing turned sour when Roy Kinnearhad a tragic (and York believes, an unnecessary) accident. Kinnear wasasked to ride his horse across a bridge in a long shot and tried tooblige. He fell and was rushed to the hospital where he later passedaway. York feels the producers treated Kinnear and his family shabbily.Any joy the actors may have had going in to the project evaporatedafter that.
Lester's musketeer films were some of the first films I ever saw in themovie theatre, and I was entranced. Disappointingly I also saw "TheFifth Musketeer" with a different set of actors, and a differentproduction team. Fast forward ten to fifteen years after that, and I'mchannel surfing one evening when I come across some kind of periodpiece that happens to looks like a musketeer film on WTBS.And it is. Complete with Michael York and gang to reprise their roles.Huh? Wha-? "Return of the Musketeers"? How is it that I never heard ofthis movie? Particularly when it came out a few years before airing onTed Turner's Superstation?Unfortunately I only caught the final twenty minutes or so, but I knewWTBS would reair it at some point, or it'd be available on VHSsomewhere. Right? Nope.Just like the book upon which the film was based I had to wait twentyyears to get a DVD of this film, and from where? France. Fitting, ifsomewhat ironic given the production team. As part of a three film setI had to repurchase the original 1970's films, but at least I finallyhave the full set of Richard Lester's renaissance tales.But, to the film. I like it. It's not quite as extraordinary as thefirst two films, but it does manage to recapture some of the atmosphereset by the previous two films. We see the decadence of the privilegedaristocracy, but we don't quite see the visual juxtaposition of whatwas filth ridden Europe at that point in history.I have to admit that the film feels somewhat cobbled together, but Ienjoyed it all the same. As you probably already know comedic actor RoyKinnear's life was tragically cut short working on this production, andthe film is appropriately dedicated to him.I guess the one thing that really stands out in this film is the factthat it's a relatively low budget affair. When the first musketeerfilms were shot the film makers had the advantage of shooting underFranco's Spain, making the production a cheap affair for en epic scaleproduction. I guess when democracy spreads the wealth it also spreadsthe demand for wealth, making things more expensive, therefore reducingthe scale of the action and truncating any large battle scenes. You cantell that in spite of this being an expensive production that the moneyjust wasn't there to do proper Richard Lester justice for this thirdinstallment of the musketeer movies.All in all I enjoyed it. As I say the production values aren't quitethere. Noticeably the one real critique that I had with the second film"The Four Musketeers" was the fact that Michael Legrand's adventurousscore was absent. So it is with this film. Which is a shame, because anadventurous film needs an adventurous score. Oh well.Like I say, it's not the best film in the series, but I'm glad tofinally have it in my collection, albeit on Region 2 DVD. Give it achance if you're new. If you remember the 70's musketeer films, thengive this one a spin for a small bit of remembrance.
It's nice to see many of the original cast members back for this third"Musketeers" movie, even though 15 years has elapsed since the secondfilm. Usually such a long hiatus would have resulted in changes ofpersonnel and style, but here we have a refreshing example of that NOTbeing the case. They even have the same director (Richard Lester),which helps to explain why the old mix of slapstick, politicalintrigue, sex and action is still so effective. Before I actually sawThe Return Of The Musketeers, I was foolish enough to listen to all thenegative critical buzz surrounding the film. As a result I came to italready prejudiced, expecting it to be a tired, listless, unworthy endto the trilogy (as many reviewers had suggested). Not so.... this is amost enjoyable instalment, and those who say otherwise are, frankly,wrong!The musketeers as we remember them have long since gone their separateways. D'Artagnan (perenially youthful Michael York) is the only onestill employed as a musketeer, but he now works for the King - andrather less money! He is galvanised back into action when entrusted bythe Cardinal Mazzarin (Phillipe Noiret) to deal with the rise ofBeaufort supporters in the wake of Cromwell's rise to power in England.However, he soon has more to worry about than a mere rebellion when itbecomes apparent that a name from the past has returned to exactrevenge on each of the musketeers. That name is Justine de Winter,daughter of Milady de Winter (the female villain that Faye Dunawayplayed in the earlier films, who was eventually captured and beheadedby the musketeers). With Justine out for revenge, D'Artagnan has totrack down his old friends - some of whom are Beaufort supporters andtherefore the very people he should be fighting against - and togetherthey ride again into various adventures and dangers.There are certainly some problems with The Return Of The Musketeers,but none of them undermine the film as much as its detractors wouldhave us believe. Firstly, Kim Cattrall plays Justine in toocontemporary a style and this jars with the film's period trappings.Secondly, Richard Chamberlain's character, the musketeer Aramis, is notin the story much and the scripters have tried to compensate for hisabsence by introducing the character of Raoul, son of Athos. Alas,Raoul is both unnecessary to the story (he was mentioned in the book,but not used whatsoever as a key figure) and rather poorly played by C.Thomas Howell - another actor too contemporary for the surroundings.Apart from that, this is a most enjoyable movie with plenty of excitingsequences and good humour. In particular, there are several actionsequences which are given a lovely element of slapstick (check out thewonderfully funny opening sequence, for example). The plot is quitecomplex and hard to keep up with - as, indeed, it was in the twoearlier instalments - but the lively pacing and frequent bursts ofaction keep the audience engrossed. Many reviewers have alreadycommented that this was Roy Kinnear's last film (he died following ahorse-riding accident on the set), so I won't add too much to what hasalready been said. I will, however, say that Kinnear's performance inthe film is comedy at its finest and this whole film is a lovelytribute to a lovely man and his considerable comic talents.
The Return of the Musketeers is the fourth remake of the Alexandre Dumas novel "The Twenty Years After.(A Russian and Italian version stayed closer to the original novel Milady had a son Mordaunt nee John Francis de Winter.The French made a 1955 version which like this version changed Milady's son into a daughter.This is a great follow-up to The Three and Four Musketeers.Being that Faye Dunaway was killed off in the Four Musketeers.Kim Cattrall is excellent as a foil for the Musketeers as Milady and Rochefort's illegitimate daughter after the Four Musketeers for having her mother executed (rightfully,so.).The acting,sets and costumery are great.It's a shame that Oliver Reed and Roy Kinnear are now deceased they could have been back for a fourth film based on the Musketeers final years-The Man in the Iron Mask.A great trilogy if there ever was one.At least the Russians filmed the 3 works.
This "Sequel," which barely even resembles "Twenty Years After," on which it claims to be based, along with the previous films, is a pathetic excuse for a movie. Allow me to enumerate some of the most blatant things I hate regarding this movie and its prequels.For one thing, a continuity error inexplicably pops up in having Rochefort (who is killed in the second sequel, which is a major deviation from the novel "The Three Musketeers," in which Rochefort survives and is accidentally killed by D'Artagnan at the end of the novel "Twenty Years After") return...and, this is what i don't get, the FATHER OF Justine (a female version of Mordaunt, the original villain of the novel "Twenty Years After.") How the devil did the screenwriter come up with those half-baked ideas? did he not even read the novel? Also, Aramis is never seen again after he breaks his sword, which is another huge deviation from the novel. Another thing, it was mostly comedy, approaching lewdness. D'Artagnan also calls Justine a b.... during their climactic fight. Cyrano De Bergerac inexplicably appears in the film, portrayed by the actor who played Louis XIII in the first two movies. Also, the young king Louis XIV falls in love with Justine, as does Raoul (who is inexplicably interested in science). Anne Of Austria refers to Madame Bonancieux as "A silly s...," which is incorrect, as in the original novel she refers to her as "Poor woman," when remembering that D'Artagnan was in love with her. In the first film "The Three Musketeers," Consyance and Milady meet, and fight. Where did that come from? Rochefort in love with Milady? Where the plague did that emerge? (There may be other inconsistencies in the first two movies that I missed; I hated them, and this film is even worse). The servants of Athos, Porthos & Aramis are completely omitted, and Planchet is mostly viewed from a distance (they should have simply recast the part and pur all of Roy Kinnear's footage from this movie as a bonus feature, which, had these films been faithful to the novels, they would have deserved special features). All these inconsistencies (and others which i may have missed noting here) with the original story make these movies not worth a sword-thrust. A great cast (Michael York, Charlton Heston, Christopher Lee, Raquel Welch and Geraldine Chaplin) are wasted in these trashy movies. Avoid them like the Bubonic Plague (aka The Black Death).
I'm afraid that, given the success of Lester's 'The Three Musketeers'and 'The Four Musketeers' with the same cast, I found this film a soredisappointment; more of a disappointment, perhaps, than if I'd hopedfor less. There was only one moment when the film carried any seriousdepth for me, and that was in the confrontation between Aramis andD'Artagnan; although completely without basis in the book, that was theonly episode that carried any hint of the bitterness of genuine feelingbetween the four reflected in the torn loyalties of the original.As for the rest, it was played for parody, pure and simple. It might aswell have been entitled "Return of the Son of the Bride of theMusketeers from 20,000 Fathoms", given its grievous case of'sequel-itis'.Rochefort is gratuitously re-introduced, despite the fact that heperforms no plot function at all and trails around like a mangy dog, tobe pitied even by Oliver Cromwell. We have the introduction into thestory of a Milady Mark II, played as a pantomime Principal Boy incontrast to the all-too-feminine menace of her predecessor, whoachieves the surprisi g feat of warding off ungallant attacks of fouragainst one without inadvertently enlisting our sympathies as theunderdog. We have overlong, over-slapstick fight scenes, epitomisedperhaps by the opening sequence, where even Roy Kinnear's sad deathduring subsequent filming cannot excuse the tedium of his character'swould-be comic antics. We have Oliver Reed miscast as ever as abrawling, bibulous Athos, requiring an unbelievably tasteless rewriteof the famous scene beneath the scaffold for attempted humorouseffect(!) We have Athos' wet son Raoul brought in to make up thenumbers in a nod at romantic interest -- unfortunately he's such anonentity it's hard to care.All the faults of the previous productions have been retained, writlarge, while all of their charm has somehow been utterly mislaid. Thisisn't just an unsuccessful try at a sequel: in a way, I could haveforgiven that. At times, alas, the film is little short of a travesty.If you loved the originals -- this is one of the cases where I'dactively advise against watching the reprise, for the sake of sparingthe embarrassment of the actors involved, if for nothing else. Watchthe French-made "D'Artagnan's Daughter"(1994) for next-generationcomedy; or, if you want to see Michael York play an aging D'Artagnanwith genuine boisterous charm, try the harmless bit of fluff that wasthe 'mini-series' "La Femme Musketeer" of 2004.
It was good to see the 'boys' in action again. The 'twist' of Athos and Arimis not trusting d'Artagnan was good. Otherwise, most of it was boring. I loved the 3 and 4 Musketeers, the 3 being my favorite.
Richard Lester attempts to recreate the magic of his '70s "Musketeer"films,and for the most part he succeeds, but "The Return of the Musketeers" is abit too episodic at times and occasionally feels rushed, particularly attheend. It's fun to see the foursome back together again, though, andJean-Pierre Cassel (who played Louis XIII in the earlier films) has a niceturn as a delusional Cyrano de Bergerac. Too bad this turned out to beLester's last film (not counting the Paul McCartney concert film "GetBack").
The movie "The Revenge of the Musketeers" was a pleasant surprise sinceI had read the book,"Twenty Years After" by Dumas. At the end of thefirst book,"The Three Musketeers," D'Artagnan attained more than he hadimagined, a commission as a Lieutenant in the King's Musketeers. Thenext book in the series,"Twenty Years After," started with our herostill only a lowly, impoverished Lieutenant after a full twenty yearsof service. The beauty of the film "The Revenge of the Musketeers" isin keeping the spirit of the first two movies, staying close to theoriginal books by Dumas(instead of the kiddie version),the third moviewas made with the original actors almost Twenty Years After the firstwas produced! I for one cannot think of another example of Hollywoodstaying so true to such a concept. The plot can be depressing comparedto the youthful glory of the original. This, again is keeping true tothe story. More a lesson in the whimsy of Royalty (government or anypower structure)and how men are used to further their interests.
WHile not on the same level as the first two Musketeer movies made by Richard Lester, the Return of the Musketeers is still a great movie. Nearly all the original cast are together again and the magic is still there. This sort of comedy/swashbuckler seems to have been forgotten a bit nowadays ( The Mark of Zoro has some of the ingredients, but leans more to the adventure side ) Somewhat loosely based on Dumas' The Musketeers: Twenty years later, the Return of the Musketeers sports a female swordslinger in Lady the Winter's daughter, who's lust for revenge brings the four Musketeers together again. They should be greatful! It even leaves the suggestion of a sequel, since the villainess escapes in the end, but no further movies were made. On the whole: a movie that is fun to watch, just don't take it seriously.