Cloaked Critic Reviews The Three Musketeers

!!!!SPOILER ALERT!!!!

"Mickey, Donald, & Goofy: The Three Musketeers" is a 2004 direct-to-video animated family film starring Disney's most iconic characters in a loose adaptation of Alexandre Dumas' world-famous novel, "The Three Musketeers".

In tried-true Disney fashion, this is the rags-to-riches story told again through the daring exploits of Mickey, Goofy, and Donald as they fight adversity and self-doubt to achieve their childhood dream of becoming musketeers. Disney has always had a strong preference for the rags-to-riches archetype; a clumsy awkward misfit nobody lucks out on an intrepid adventure that eventually sees them get everything they ever wanted (and then some). This is the foundation for nearly all successful Disney stories. It's their bread and butter...it's what we've come to know, love, and expect from the folks at Disney. It is the substance of their motto, "Dreams Come True" (or something like that)...they lie to our faces, tell us we're all special, and we fuckin' love it! They're well on their way to becoming a religion.

Even though this movie is very loosely based off "The Three Musketeers" novel (as well as the 1993 Disney movie I'd be willing to bet) much of this story's plot seems to owe a great deal more to the lengthy series of "Police Academy" films (as well as every feel-good "buddy picture" ever made). This is particularly true of the basic premise itself; that a group of hapless misfits struggle to prove their worth and become iron-willed enforcers of justice in spite of their individual eccentricities. Additionally, (though I never thought about it before) much of the tone and feel for this movie reminds me A LOT of "The Prince and the Pauper", so much in fact until I'd be so bold as to say that this is pretty much the spiritual successor to that film; much like it was likely the spiritual sequel to "Mickey's Christmas Carol" and "Mickey and the Beanstalk".

Just like in "The Prince and the Pauper", Pete once again plays the role of a crooked captain of the guard looking to seize power for himself. Although Pete was a great deal more ruthless in the prior...but since he was voiced by the same guy who did Destro from "G.I. Joe" I guess that was to be expected, and whilst on the topic of Pete, I'd just like to point out how extraordinary a character he really is. As far as villains go, he's sort of an every-fit, a bad guy for all occasions. Although he doesn't have the same sinister charm as Disney's more recognized baddies like Maleficent, Jafar, or Scar, he can and has been everything from a comical con to a ruthless sadist perfectly capable as being every bit as merciless as Disney's worst of the worst. Because of his wealth of villainous diversity I dare to say that Pete might very well be the greatest villain that Disney ever made...not to mention the oldest. This guy was doing dirty deeds before the evil queen from Snow White ever graduated from Witches School. With all that in mind, it becomes clear that Pete's seriously been getting snubbed and underplayed for years! These days he's been largely demoted to the position of a cartoonish thug. Let's hope one day they give him a role that really allows him to convey the true depths of his potential depravity.

Incidentally, this movie would be the first time in quite a long while that we'd see Pete sporting a peg-leg again; which also feels appropriate to the story somehow...I'm not sure why. Perhaps because it reflects the harsh primitiveness of the time in which this story is set. Although the way they keep alternating between him having a peg for a leg and an actual foot arguably creates some continuity issues concerning the Disney filmography (or at least it would if you didn't remember that cartoons are to logic what oil is to water). In place of the weasels from "Prince and the Pauper", this movie instead makes use of Disney's other ruthless gang of thugs...the Beagle Boys! However, for the sake of the story, they've been given a major redesign to make them appear more period-accurate. Their look is such a departure from all previous incarnations until at first I didn't even know who they were. I actually thought they were completely new characters (as they still very well might be). After all, the Beagle Boys have a VERY BIG family...As a passing side thought, how cool would it be to see a turf war play out between the Beagle Boys and the Weasels? Who do you think would win?!

Unlike "The Prince and the Pauper" which tried to stay at least a trifle true to the original story. This movie is only an adaptation in the loosest possible sense. It is mainly connected to novel by namesake alone, and offers little more than a nod to the titular characters from the original. Apart from that the movie seems to tell a completely different story; one that is as fairly tame as it is fairly cliche, and though some might see that as reason for harsh criticism, I feel that the story provides enough mirth and humor to excuse the blatant unoriginality. Satires such as this owe little to the concept of source-accuracy or uniqueness, so I'll judge it upon its own merits. All in all, the plot seems more like a cartoon short extended nearly an hour plus past the 7-minute mark. It's a cartoonish parody done in the cherished style made timeless by the Golden Era; dumb fun with a light-hearted touch of wit and whimsy.

About the only real issue I take with the movie's story is that Pete's plot seems...well, kind of dumb. As we eventually find out, his plan from the beginning was to kidnap the princess, have one of his goons impersonate her, and have them pronounce him the new "King of France". Ignoring the fact that that's not how monarchy works, his plan starts to seem really dumb when you stop to consider his objection toward killing the princess. At the beginning of the movie he chastises his lackeys for trying to kill her (with a big cartoon safe), and then later wants them to kidnap her and lock her in a tower where no one will ever find her, but this doesn't make sense when you realize that nothing about his plan requires her to be alive. In fact, his plans actually benefit from her being dead. I mean, sure, at the beginning it wouldn't have been conducive seeing how there would have been witnesses to her murder, but later there was certainly nothing stopping him from bumping her off. There was everything to gain from killing her...but alas I fear I'm guilty of trying to apply logic to a cartoonish scheme concocted by a cartoon villain.

One of the things I like best about this movie is how well it embodies all the humor and class from the original Disney shorts. It's clear that the filmmakers took great inspiration from the trio's early classics and blended the old with the new to create a fresher revitalization of the timeless Disney charm. It really is like an hour-long classic Disney short. Though I'm sure there are those who might disagree, I for one, tend to love short movies like this, for it takes great talent to convey such endearing warmth and spirit within such a small window of time. In fact, I feel like too many movies nowadays devote too much time toward excessive useless fluff; pointless scenes that do little to progress the story, and only serve to pad the runtime by interjecting unnecessary drama or overblown action shots. They don't build up the characters, they don't expand on the plot; they're just there to waste everyone's time! I like it a lot more when movies cut to the chase pausing only momentarily to toss in a quick joke, sight gag, or tender moment (but only if it helps the story).

The story for this movie is narrated (and all the songs are sung) by Pepe Le Pew's troubadour turtle cousin. I quite appreciate the inclusion of classical music in this movie (really helps give it that grand ol' Golden Age vigor). All the songs in this film have been adapted from timeless waltzes, operas, and symphonies. Famous works such as the "Blue Danube", "Dance of the Reed Flutes", "Habanera", and "The Pirates of Penzance" have been reinterpreted with comedic lyrics. Some might see it as lazy and unimaginative, but I personally see nothing wrong with recycling ageless art for the sake of light-hearted parody, plus it does fit with the overall tone and setting quite well; combined with the highly cartoonish presentation it all feels very appropriate.

Truly, this was the last great movie to star the iconic mouse, but who knows. The newer webtoons featuring the mouse have shown great and greater promise and continue to display a fond reverence for the old style and humor. Perhaps the future is still bright for everybody's favorite antiqued rodent, and one day maybe Disney will grace us with yet another heart-warming family film featuring our treasured childhood friends. We can still hope for and expect good things from Mickey...which is more than I can say for certain long-eared rabbit! Damnnit, Bugs! Where did you go wrong?!