The Three Musketeers (1993)

I picked up The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas thinking I was embarking on a difficult task, wading through an American classic. What I found instead was a light-hearted action-packed adventure. I'm not quite sure what makes it a "classic". I found the plot to be disjointed, almost as though I were reading three short adventures rather than one coherent story. I also felt that the characters were weak and not fully-developed. By the end I was still trying to differentiate between Athos and Porthos. Walt Disney's 1997 adaptation straring Charlie Sheen and Chris O'Donnell takes the light-hearted plot and unifies the stories into a hilarious, enjoyable adventure. Instead of three weakly-tied storylines, the journey of our heroes takes on one mission: to foil the Cardinal's plot to assassinate the King. Although this film was under the Action category, it's strength is in its Comedy. Charlie Sheen and Oliver Platt perform their roles with terrific comedic style. I found myself laughing before Platt (Porthos) even opened his mouth and when Sheen told one of his adversaries to "Go with God" the delivery was perfect. I love Sheen in 2 1/2 Men, and his comedic talent shines through here as well.

In Dumas' book, D'Artagnan is the central character and the brains behind many of the three (four) Musketeers adventures. He's the best swordsman and the most likable character. O'Donnell just doesn't fit the part, IMO. But the saving grace here is that the movie re-shapes D'Artagnan into a brave but naive boy. Aramis and Athos share the leadership and intelligence operations, pulling D'Artagnan along for the ride. O'Donnell's performance was adequate, but I felt another actor may have been more likable. Sunderland plays the somber Athos well, and Rebecca DeMournay adds a vulnerable dimension to Lady DeWinter (Clark in the book) In the film, the King is barely a boy and his marriage to Anne of Austria is arranged. This may be true in the book, but if so I missed it. The budding romance between the two is much sweeter than the Queen's affair with the Duke of Buckingham in Dumas' text. And the King's "journey to manhood" is concluded perfectly when he punches the Cardinal towards the end of the film. Constance has a smaller part in the movie, but she is unmarried and so free to follow her "love at first sight" with D'Artagnan.

The movie has the infamous Musketeers disbanded to start the plot, a complete change from the book. It's a nice touch, as this separates the three Musketeers as outlaws as the rest of the band has returned their uniforms and swords. It also gives Captain Rochefort ("Rochefort? Isn't that a smelly cheese?") a stronger role as he makes several failed attempts to arrest the three (soon four) outlaws.

Two of my favorite plot lines in the book are luckily retained in the movie. D'Artagnan's introduction to the three Musketeers (a duel with each one the same day), and Athos' history with Lady DeWinter. Both are accurately presented in the movie, and the humor of the first and the intensity of the second are retained.

In the book the Cardinal is an ambivalent character, giving D'Artagnan the option of 'saving himself' while practicing questionable politics. In the movie he is pure evil, which makes the plot easier to follow. He has some decent lines, but his comedic timing is weak. His evil nature, however, is very believable. The straightforward "bad guy" allows us to feel a little pity towards Lady DeWinter when she reveals her undying devotion towards Athos, who betrayed her all those years ago. In the book she is the character that is pure evil, with no regard towards either Athos nor her second husband. When she reveals the Cardinal's plot to Athos and then throws herself off the cliff (both twists added in the movie), I felt moved more than any moment in the book. I was also touched by the King's ceremony inducting D'Artagnan into the Musketeers. The scene was reminiscient of the last scene of Star Wars.

All in all, I would say the movie shone in a way a more faithful book adaptation couldn't.

The Stand (TV Movie)

I am a huge Stephen King fan, and of all his books The Stand is far and away my favorite. The choice to make it into a TV movie rather than a feature film was obvious, based only on the 1000+ pages. Even if he didn't have a cameo appearance in the film, I would have known that King had a hand in this one. It's a brilliant adaptation, with great casting. I'm not crazy about Molly Ringwald, but she did a good job here. And Gary Sinise was ultra-charming with his cute Texan accent ("Country don't mean dumb") Rob Lowe, Ed Harris and Bill Fagerbakke are also bright spots. The only cast choice I questioned was Nadine. She was supposed to be hauntingly beautiful, and I don't feel that Laura San Giacoma ("Just Shoot Me") fits the bill.

Every scene was faithful to the book, and I was glued to the screen even though I knew every plot twist. I have this 6+-hour movie on tape, and I've watched it more than once in one day.

The Bourne Identity

I have to give this adaptation a big thumbs down. I didn't mind that the character of the doctor was completely eliminated. I certainly didn't mind the casting of Matt Damon as Bourne. (he's pretty hot as an action figure) The first thing that bothered me was Marie. In the book she is such a beautiful, strong, intelligent woman. She helps Bourne unravel the clues behind his identity, and maintains her faith in his integrity. Why did they even keep her name? The Marie in the movie is a gypsy, and although she has moments of intelligence and creatitivity, she's mostly a flake (plus she's not at all attractive). She has no connections that help Bourne, and she actually abandons (!) him in the middle of the movie.

Along with Marie having fundamental differences in her character, she 'meets' Bourne in a completely different situation. The romance could have been so much hotter if Bourne had originally taken her hostage and then saved her life, as in the book. Instead you feel as though the two are thrown together simply because 'she's the only person he knows'.

Even bigger than the Marie problem, the movie has Bourne as an actual assassin, and completely eliminated the central character of Carlos. WTH? The entire book is based on the journey of Bourne discovering his identity, struggling with his initial assumptions. The book is a mystery, with ups and downs as Bourne and Marie discover the small clues that finally paint a complete picture. When they finally find that Bourne is American Intelligence, and has never carried out a cold-blooded assasination, you can almost hear the choir sing Halleluiah. In the movie the only saving revelation was that Bourne could not carry out his last assignment, as the potential victim is surrounded by children. And he tells his 'boss': "I don't want to do this anymore." That isn't a bad story line, but it completely alters the main thread of the book.

I'm looking forward to reading "The Bourne Supremacy" next, but I'm a little wary of what the movie may bring (although I still won't mind watching Damon with a gun for a couple hours)