Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

mark.waltz While this follows the basic storyline we've seen in more than half a dozen films, this musical comedy is part operetta/part farce, some of it more amusing than the other. With their tongues firmly in their cheeks, the Ritz Brothers are substituted for musketeers which Don Ameche (as D'Artagnon) has made the mistake of insulting in print. They are passed out when Ameche arrives, believing that the disguised Ritz Brothers are actually the men he was arranging to meet. This leads to adventures as they struggle to return a broach belonging to Queen Anne (Gloria Stuart) to her before the King discovers it is missing. The villain is of course the scheming Cardinal Richilieu (Miles Mander looking nothing like George Arliss) who is plotting to reveal the Queen's alleged infidelity with an Englishman (Lester Matthews) she has given a passport to in order to leave the country. Ameche falls in love with the Queen's lady in waiting (a dull Pauline Moore) while the Cardinal conspires with the scheming Lady DeWinter (a fun Binnie Barnes) who must undergo humiliation by the Ritz Brothers as part of her acting assignment. The result is a mixed bag that would later be done more seriously by MGM in 1948 and as a light-hearted comedy/adventure in 1974.The love songs seem like relics out of the days of Broadway operetta, which it had been in the 1920's, while the comedy tunes seem like spoofs of Gilbert and Sullivan. The Ritz Brothers are amusing, but their buffoonery is inappropriate in its trying to make us believe that Ameche would not see through their silliness. Recent Oscar Winner Joseph Schildkraut is only seen briefly as the King, but popular screen villains John Carradine and Lionel Atwill get to pop up and do their thing. The first Ritz Brothers gag (involving a drinking contest) is straight out of the Three Stooges, while a novelty musical number (involving the brothers clad in pots and pans being used as musical instruments) is slightly amusing. The feathered hat-wearing Ameche lays the over-acting a little thick here, reminding me of the old line about a similar performance being referred to as "a ham with a feather in it". It is enjoyable as light-hearted fare, but serious lovers of the story are better off sticking with the 1935, 1948 and 1974 versions.

MartinHafer 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.

maksquibs 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.

Poseidon-3 With the many, many film versions of Dumas' classic tale out there, it became necessary (to some filmmakers) to mix it up a bit and put a spin or two on the story or use stunt casting in order to make the material seem fresh or different to an audience. In some cases, this has worked (as in the splendiferous 1973 version and its sequel) and in others it hasn't (the heinous Brat Pack version with Charlie Sheen.) This 1939 version is probably somewhere in the middle. The title characters barely appear at all as they are disposed of right off the bat and replaced by The Ritz Brothers. It is these three bumbling oddballs that Ameche (as D'Artagnan) meets with and enacts the story beside. Ameche and the Ritz's are enlisted to save the Queen of France's honor when she gives a priceless brooch to her lover, the Duke of Buckingham, but then needs it back in order to save face before her husband the King and his second-in-command Cardinal Richelieu. Standing in their way is the deceptive Barnes (as Milady De Winter) and the Cardinal's guards, led by Atwill (as Rochefort.) In the meantime, Ameche woos the Queen's dressmaker Moore through song and derring-do. This is a very pared down, simplified version of the story, ending before the plot becomes too dark (about a decade later, the Gene Kelly version would show the tale all the way to the end.) All but the bare bones of the story is hacked out or altered in order to house wacky comic schtick from the Ritzes or musical numbers, mostly supplies by Ameche. That said, enough of the tale remains to create some level of interest and a decent cast helps to put the thing over for the most part. Ameche is handsome and charming. Moore is reasonably appealing. Barnes is intriguing and game to the comic shenanigans while retaining her dignity. Stuart makes a lovely Queen Anne and does the best she can with a rather thin role. Familiar faces like Schildkraut and Carradine dot the cast. One disappointment is Mander as Richelieu. He doesn't bring an ounce of the sinister charm and menace that later actors like Vincent Price and Charlton Heston gave to the role. As for the Ritz Brothers, their brand of comedy is a matter of taste. They display a sort of mincing quality and don't particularly impress here in their series of bits, though they do show a flair for physical comedy at times. Thanks to lengthier careers, more distinct personalities and the aid of television reruns, The Three Stooges have nearly completely eclipsed these three gents who only enjoyed roughly a decade of film stardom. Likely to disappoint stalwart fans of the novel, the film is a pleasant enough diversion for others and is brief and nice to look at.