Forumrxes Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

JohnHowardReid Aside from the superb performance of Walt Whitman as Cardinal Richelieu, this version – although competent enough – does not have a great deal to recommend it. Its chief drawback is Charles Swickard's lazy direction. Would you believe, his very next film was the superlative Hell's Hinges on which he was undoubtedly helped out by Bill Hart and Cliff Smith. Here, however, Swickard takes it easy. He doesn't bother to frame any of his shots. In fact, he leaves all the photography to Clyde De Vinna – whose first film this is! So you can hardly blame Clyde for nailing his camera to the floor. Indeed, the whole film is photographed – and directed! – as if it were a stage play. This is a shame because it throws an enormous weight on the actors. Only Whitman is equal to the task of fully capturing audience interest.He knows just how to move from right to left of the stage so that all eyes are upon him. Even when he is standing almost with his back to the camera, Whitman still captures all our attention! Orrin Johnson, who plays D'Artagnan without much charisma here, was primarily active on the Broadway stage. He retired in 1925. The other support players make little impression, although both Dorothy Dalton and Louise Glaum make an effort to garner interest in roles that in this version seem almost peripheral. One of the reasons that Whitman dominates the movie is that he has four or five times as many scenes as anyone else. And he undoubtedly told Swickard how he intended to play them: "In this scene, Charles, I'll enter from the back of the set at the extreme left and moving left to extreme right, I'll gradually make my way to the front." Available on a very good Alpha DVD, coupled with the Fairbanks version.

briantaves Thomas Ince's pictures were increasingly varied in content by 1915, as I outline in my biography of the producer. D'ARTAGNAN was an exemplary early example of the swashbuckler, still a genre in its cinematic infancy. From the opening of the young Gascon going to Paris and learning of the conflict between the forces of the Cardinal and the King, he is devoted to a code of honoring womanhood and country. The Cardinal's motives, by contrast, are shown as his lust for the Queen (Dorothy Dalton), which she rebuffs as unsuited to his celibate calling. When she gives a token to the Duke of Buckingham, the Cardinal is determined to have revenge, since the Duke succeeded where he failed. The Cardinal is eager to open a breech between King and Queen. The familiar Alexandre Dumas story unfolds in an exciting manner, full of breathless sword fights and escapes as the Musketeers sacrifice for each other and young D'Artagnan succeeds in his mission.Unfortunately, star Orrin Johnson, a former stage associate of Ince, is visibly too old for the youthful title role. However, other cast members, especially Walt Whitman as the the Cardinal, make a stronger impression. Charles Swickard directed the J.G. Hawks adaptation in five reels for $17,774. It was produced for Kay-Bee but not actually released until February 1916 by Triangle. Ince recalled that D'ARTAGNAN met with only average popularity, despite an elaborate production and critical approval. Exhibitors decided against costume pictures, and Ince heeded their words. When audience interest changed, Ince wrote, then producers would hasten to provide such entertainment. The movie was subsequently reissued (over Ince's objections) in 1920 as THE THREE MUSKETEERS, competing with Douglas Fairbanks's own recent production of the novel.

rsoonsa This is the fourth filmed adventure of Dumas' THREE MUSKETEERS (already, in 1915), and of all those produced before or since provides the closest semblance to the novelist's classic tale, here condensed to essentially one extended incident involving the adventurous quartet's ongoing conflict with Cardinal Richelieu, played nicely by Walt Whitman (no, not the poet; it's not THAT old). Most of the scenes depicted are quite short, a pacing key to the film's success, as the acting is of the normal histrionic type found during the silent era, wherein most screen players were normally also engaged in stage performance. The work is very well mounted, particularly when consideration is given to its expense ($15000), and is historically generally quite accurate, presenting with skill the alliance which Richelieu formulated with the crown to rule France in the early 17th century. Due to litigation, D'ARTAGNAN, as it was known at the time of its release, was not widely seen for nearly five years past its making, and came into direct competition with the Douglas Fairbanks version, lavishly produced and with orchestrated praise in place; nonetheless, the direction of the German, Charles Swickard, and the performances by Orrin Johnson, in the title role, and of Dorothy Dalton, as Queen Anne, are of interest to a cinema devotee.