The Three Musketeers (1939)

The only way to make a bad movie out of The Three Musketeers is to cast Charlie Sheen in it as they did in 1993. Note to other reviewers: EVERY filmed version of this Dumas' tale has to be a chop job—unless it becomes a multi-episode cable TV series. Note #2: most classics get spoofed (think how delightfully well Mel Brooks has done with Life of Brian, Frankenstein, Dracula, Robin Hood. Few actors of his day could surpass Don Ameche for versatility (singer, physical actor, comedy actor), and Binnie Barnes rivals any other female actor who's played Lady d'Winter, and she proved a fine foil for the Ritz Brothers. Add John Carradine and Lionel Atwill for villainy and we have a fine cast of pros. As to the Ritz Brothers, they were superb talents: precision dancers, singers and comedians who were among the highest paid revue and nightclub acts in the USA. Like many variety comedians (Beatrice Lillie, Bert Lahr, The Wiere Brothers, Shaw & Lee, Jimmy Savo), it was difficult to adapt narrative material for three surreal madcaps like the Ritzes. The Three Musketeers is enjoyable not only because of Ameche, Barnes, Carradine and Atwill, but for the bright and witty story curve fielded by Al, Harry & Jimmy Ritz. The Three Musketeers does not showcase the Ritzes at their best (see: You Can't Have Everything; Sing, Baby, Sing; and On the Avenue. Pass on The Gorilla; it doesn't merit anyone's consideration. But The Three Musketeers may be their best film in overall quality—after all, it was directed by Allan Dwan (who helmed the Doug Fairbanks version). Frank Cullen founder: ABQ Film Club and American Vaudeville Museum author: Vaudeville Old & New (Routledge 2007).

This is a perfectly likable, but also perfectly forgettable movie. Don Ameche had charm, and he shows that here. The Ritz Brothers were second-rate Three Stooges, but they're about as good as they ever got here. Binnie Barnes is nice to look at. The plot is forgettable, which wouldn't have been a problem if the songs had been any good, but they are all completely and instantly forgettable.Still, to judge from the sets, Fox must have thought this movie had box office potential: it's not cheaply made.If it's on and you have nothing better to do, it's a pleasant way to pass an hour.It's not worth seeking out, though.

The Ritz Brothers are an acquired taste...like arsenic! Try as I might, every film I have seen these guys in I have thoroughly despised them. Now I read at least one review that liked this comedy(?) team, but I cannot stand them. I have reviewed quite a few films over the years by teams like the Marx Brothers, Olsen and Johnson, Wheeler and Woolsey, Abbott and Costello as well as the Three Stooges (all contemporaries of the Ritz's) and can say that for me, they are by far the least talented team of the era. Most of this is because unlike these other teams, there is no distinct personality for any of the three Ritz brothers. They all look pretty much the same and mug almost constantly for the camera. They also do not appear to have any talents other than acting goofy--not exactly a deep act! If you asked me which one was Harry or Jimmy, I certainly couldn't tell you--and I assume it's probably true for most people who have seen their films. So why, oh why, did they think to put these no-talents into Dumas' classic tale?! It's even more perplexing because the rest of the film is played so straight and the Ritz moments seem almost tacked on or an intrusion. I can only assume that studio chief Darryl Zanuck must have been insane at the time or under the influence! Other than the Ritz's antics, the rest of the film an an odd melange. On one hand, the ever-competent Don Ameche stars as D'Artagnan was not a bad casting decision--he was handsome and could sing quite nicely. The film also looked very nice. However, someone must have really had it out for Ameche, as in addition to saddling him the with Ritz Brothers, many of the songs they gave him to sing (in particular the first one) were simply awful. The tunes weren't bad but the lyrics...uggh!!! My house needed fumigation after several of them!What we have left are some decent actors trying to make the best of an untenable situation. They tried their best but the film simply was begging to be remade. My advice is to see the 1948 version with Gene Kelly or any of the more recent remakes, as they are head and shoulders above this 1939 mess--one of the few stinkers to come from this golden year in Hollywood.Overall, a tedious mess. The only good in the film I can think of is that it led to a clever episode of "Leave it to Beaver". The Beaver was supposed to do a book report on "The Three Musketeers" and instead watched this film and based the report entirely on it! Not surprisingly, he got an F and learned his lesson! I do wonder what this movie would have been like with the Marx Brothers and their zaniness. Sure, at the time they were employed by a different studio (MGM), but they could have really given the film a needed infusion of anarchy and goofiness.Not worth your time unless you are a 100% crazed movie freak (like me). Try ANY other version of the tale--it can't help but be better.

A musical comedy version of the swashbuckling classic starring Don Ameche and the Ritz Bros? It sounds like a Catskill burlesque sketch, but turns out to be a straight, if bare-bones, version of Dumas, with mistaken identity (times 3) swapping Al, Jim & Harry in for Athos, Aramis & Porthos. Vet megger Alan Dwan was an old hand at this type of material (his THE IRON MASK/'29 -- in the restored KINO edition, please -- is one of the great Dumas adaptations) and the production has a giddying pace and a surprisingly sumptuous look to it. But the songs are unmemorable (to put it nicely) and leave an already short film with hardly enough time to fit in a measly Cliff Notes edition of the narrative.