Well, it's not one quality... but I like to do a thumbs up or thumbs down approach. If the movie entertains a thumbs up, if it doesn't a thumbs down. Seems simpler than debating on a 4, a 5, a 6, whatever.

This is also kind of why I want to be able to review individual actors, just so I can write a memo to Guy Peirce and tell him that he needs to stop doing period literary pieces and go back to making films that don't require ascots and puffs.

And this brings me to the point in the review where I question why I know what the difference between an ascot and a puff are.

Anyway, self-reflection aside, the problem is that it doesn't know if it wants to be a thrilling adventure novel that is best epitomized by the writings of Dumas in all his pulp adventure glory... or if the story lasted in popularity for a century or so too long and now has to be regarded as a drama and treated with all the seriousness of a mature literary classic.

It teases with both and never settles on either. It kind of comes across that Wolpert, the writer, understood that Dumas was a pulp adventure writer but Reynolds, the director, thought Dumas was as serious as Dante.

It makes you feel like you are sitting in two different worlds. It kind of feels like you are watching a movie that wants to be a fun adventure yarn about revenge and prison breaks but every time that beast tries to escaped, it's forced back into it's cage by directorial gods of pretentious pompery.

This is the type of movie that you'd get if the director of "Taming of the Shrew" thought everything Shakespeare wrote was "Richard III"... it's unsettling how deadly serious it takes itself.