IndustriousAngel There's no shortage a Musketeers adaptions; this one is a success even if there are some shortcomings. What does work: The overall plot is made very clear, and during confrontations the costumes serve to distinguish the players - so it's easy to follow, even for children. There are some good outdoor shots, and most of the interior sets serve their purpose, too. As to acting, Gene Kelly brings his roguish charms and athletics to d'Artagnan, and he also carries himself well after tragedy strikes. Lana Turner as Charlotte de Winter is equally good, overacting just like warranted by the broad melodram and exhaling just the right amount of menace.What does not work so good: The other actors pale a bit besides the starring duo, especially Vincent Price as Richelieu is not very menacing, nor do we believe in his intellectual schemer. The music is very in-your-face (just my opinion, of course) and rarely lets the actors work their magic. But the biggest problem is the pace: We hurry from key scene to key scene without a chance to catch some breath, it's so jumpy the plot is in constant danger of getting whiplash syndrome. And said key scenes are also often extremely short - d'Artagnan marries Constance in 5 seconds and gets widowed in 20.Despite those shortcomings, a hearty recommendation - it's a fun adaption with not a single boring moment.

TheLittleSongbird I really liked this version of the Three Musketeers. Then again I have liked a vast majority of the adaptations of the novel, even the 1993 version which is admittedly my least favourite of the ones I liked, but it still entertained me. The novel itself by Alexandre Dumas is superbly written and a truly entertaining read. This adaptation does deviate from it, but considering how beautiful it looked and how entertaining it was I am past caring.I only have two real complaints of this movie. The film does suffer from being overlong at over two hours, consequently I did feel some scenes dragged but only slightly. My other complaint was that I wished Angela Lansbury and Vincent Price had more screen time. Lansbury is a fine actress, but because she is given very little to do, she failed to make an impression. Price is another fine actor, chiefly remembered for his performances in films like Pit and the Pendulum, Great Mouse Detective, Witchfinder General and Fall of the House of Usher. Sadly, as Cardinal Richelieu he is only in three or four scenes, but he was still good.On the whole, this 1948 film has its good points. The music score is superb, and the cinematography magnificent. The scenery is splendid and I thought the costumes were truly lavish especially Milady's dresses. The film is shot in dazzling Technicolour that still looks amazing even by today's standards. The sword fights are constantly energetic and lively, and don't feel clumsy at all. The script is on the whole good, same with the acting. Although I did worry that Gene Kelly would be out of character, as I associate him mainly with musicals, he was wonderfully athletic as D'Artagnan. Van Heflin, Gig Toung and Robert Coote all gives spirited turns as Athos, Porthos and Aramis. But who impressed me most were Lana Turner who was both beautiful and haunting as Milady and June Allyson as the lovely Constance.Overall, this 1948 film does have its flaws, but what mattered to me was who stunning it looked, it was energetic and entertaining. In these areas, that's where the film succeeded. It isn't completely faithful to the book, but I do think despite its length it is one of the better adaptations of the book out there though the 1973 film gets my vote as the definitive one. 8.5/10 Bethany Cox

wes-connors Gene Kelly is the best thing this film has going for it… he captures the adventure, spirit, and humor of both the literary work and the classic interpretation by Douglas Fairbanks. The film should have taken out all of the other "big name" stars, trimmed the script down (to give Mr. Kelly's character a singular focus), and -- this might have been a classic.If they HAD to keep one of these actresses, I'd keep Angela Lansbury, but in the role Lana Turner played. If Ms. Turner had to be in this movie for box office appeal, I'd try her in the de Winter role. June Allyson doesn't belong in this picture, in any role.Kelly is terrific. His swordly scenes are a highlight, and the film's expense is obvious. Perhaps they should have played up, rather than play down, the sexual situations -- it's strange to see Kelly kissing everyone in sight, before settling down to one interest. I'm not suggesting the film be explicit, just a bit more bawdy.****** The Three Musketeers (1948) George Sidney ~ Gene Kelly, Lana Turner, June Allyson

edwagreen An absolute hideous production. Alexander Dumas must have turned over in his grave.Despite a terrific cast, the writing is unbelievably bad even with the plush color settings by Natalie Kalmus.Gene Kelly dances but in a different way here. He starts off as a complete jerk but soon proves himself to the other musketeers as a great swordsman.I love the way that Richelieu is not depicted as a cardinal but as the first minister. Always a shame to distort history in Hollywood spectacles. Lana Turner is lovely as Countess de Winters, even with all her evil. Poor June Allyson. Her simplicity just does her in. Only in films could they pull that off.Van Heflin looked like he was ready for a few more drinks after this film. Even the usual Vincent Price does not really have the opportunity to aggressively show evil here. At the end scene, he is cast off like a natural idiot.Frank Morgan as the king is his usual buffoon self. Angela Lansbury as his Queen briefly appears and does relatively nothing here. As de Winters' lady in waiting, Patricia Medina weeps a little. Actually, she should have cried more in this atrocious production.