The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)

Highly Overrated But Still Good

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

In a France ruled with tyranny by King Louis XIV, the three legendary ex-musketeers, Athos, Porthos and Aramis, decide to take action against their ruler after Athos' son gets killed on the battlefield. Knowing that Louis has an exiled brother, hidden in a remote prison, they conceive an ingenious plan to exchange them. Their plan will prove to be much harder than expected but they are determined to pull it off.A great movie which presents a classic story with great actors in a beautiful but dramatic way. It has some great sword fights and a very interesting plot which guarantee to keep your attention till its glorious ending. I enjoyed this movie numerous times so I definitely recommend this one to everyone looking for a great classic story, greatly implemented.

Yes run to the exits. The film is not as bad as some make out. The dialog is a bit cheesy. The plot is a bit silly. It certainly is not a good movie. At the beginning I thought it was a kid's movie. What really bothered me was the voices of DeCaprio and Malkovich. Every single line out of Malkovich's mouth was wooden, and was obviously fake-- a community theater actor just mouthing the sounds. His American accent did not help. I don't like much of anything Malkovich has done, so I was not surprised. I don't know if it was because he did not fully learn his lines, or if he can't do the overdubs, or he over-enunciates, or it was something that the audio people could have fixed. I doubt it. He might be tone-deaf.Equally bad was DiCaprio, who reminded me how boy-toy heartthrobs just get by on their looks. He was miscast and the whole plot over-stressed him since they figured it would get the gal demographic. His dialog always sounded fake and forced and phony. There was one scene where he got mad and yelled and he was pretty good, a little boy throwing a tantrum, but much better than fellow boy-toy Ben Affleck, who rolls me on the floor when he tries to act angry. I understand that Leo and Ben have careers because women need to look at something while their vibrators recharge. Fine with me, but the mistake is giving them speaking parts. The gals will like Leo and Ben even more if they don't open their mouths in their films.I wonder if Wallace did re-writes after Titanic hit big and they had DiCaprio already under contract. Other reviewers noticed there were too many leads and I agree. The king should not be a focus, and Malkovich should not have made it past the screen test. With him out, then make Leo a Musketeer (notice they never carried muskets?) Make Depardieu the King and get rid of the clown character. Bring the dang women more into the story. The queen was great-- make the whole story center around her and have her direct the hijinks. Get us to like the other gal so we can kill her later, and get the sympathy vote at the Oscars. Take all suicide out-- this is Catholic France for gosh sake. Have the king kill the fluff babe when he cannot seduce her. Although hard for Hollywood to believe, most gals actually care when their lover is killed in war and won't jump into bed with the King. Now that she is pure, we really will care when she dies.Take the "sneak the twin out under a toga" bit out. If Dumas wrote it then was it was stupid in 1850 and even stupider when filmed. Also you can't have a Musketeer stabbed and then just get talked down and walk away.So now you got Leo as one Musketeer, and you can keep the other two but why pay those high-dollar great actors? Make the other two Musketeers non-speaking parts and pay them SAG minimums. The Raoul guy does not need to exist, other than in reference made by the fluff-babe who is going to die anyway. Or better yet, have DeCaprio the Musketeer save her from Depardieu the King, and then he gets the girl in the end.Yeah, that's the ticket. A nice story about the Queen mother and D'Artagnan her secret lover. Leo pulls in the gals and keeps his trap shut while getting the girl. That should get the budget from $35M down to $20M. Step C, profit.

This is one of Randall Wallace's better movies. Although not as good as Braveheart, it is better than Pearl Harbor and We Were Soldiers. It has a great cast; it is amazing that Jeremy Irons, DiCaprio, John Malkovich and Gerard Deperdieu were able to all star in the same movie. However, I have always been a History fan; and the IMDb profile claims that I like biography, history and war movies above all. Perhaps such a bias causes me to give this film a more generous rating.One thing the film did is to cause me to question issues of legitimacy. The film is, of course, not historically accurate. It is obviously romanticized. But in real life, there had actually been a man in the Iron Mask in the Bastille prison. In real life, there had been tension between Jesuits and kings. And the movie alludes to events that would later portend the French Revolution (i.e. starving hordes in Paris). In real life, King Louis XIV also declared himself to be in charge of the French Royal Council in 1661; and the film starts off in 1662. The very fact that a 'bad' king is replaced by a 'good' king may be a reference to the latent belief (at least on the part of Alexandre Dumas) that Louis XIV had been corrupt and that so had been his Royal Council. After all, Wikipedia claimed that Louis XIV's reign had actually not been peaceful during the later part of his years.However, the film was enjoyable. After watching the 1994 Disney version of the Three Musketeers as a kid years ago, it was interesting to see the Three Musketeers again in their older years. And just because they were older obviously did not mean they did not have problems. In fact, the film demonstrates the reality that their lives had gotten more difficult. The film also touches on other important issues that may cause heated debates. The film seemed to argue that the wars fought consumed the resources of the French peasants and urban workers. Rather than competing over scarce resources, the countries engaged in war fought for glory and ideological reasons. This may be true, but I'm not sure to what degree it is also a romanticized notion. Historians will probably duke it out.I would recommend this film and would even do so for those who are not fans of history.8/10

How can there be so many 'good' actors playing so badly? It was a horrible acting, as if the actors were playing scene-to-scene, without any glue between them : oh, now is time to cry, let me act it out! And really loud! Not enough inner play! For instance, when Gabriel Byrne has a rose in his hand, and in a very cliché way, Anne Parillaud puts her hand to her lips! Beuhhhh!Terrible! But funny though! As it is cruelly nice to look at some of the most revered actors and see that they can be really flawfull.Don't get me wrong. I really love them. But it is interesting to also see them in bad acting. That makes them human.I wonder why it has gone that way though. Was it the directing? Don't know.