User reviews

One either really likes this movie or really hates it. There's very little grey ground.

This movie takes some names from history and recreates an entirely novel, interesting, sad, dramatic tale. Was it merely another vehicle for Decaprios fame to grow? Maybe. Probably. But it was still entertaining, if for nothing else the amazing wardrobes.

I really like all the guys in the cast - Irons is always good. And finally some cast director recognized how much Saarsgard channels Malchovich in looks, voice and speaking, thus perfect as his son. I enjoyed Depardieus comedic relief. I like Byrne's - but I thought he looked way too old as D'Artagnan - it was a little off-putting. But his great acting helped.

I also thought the girl who played Christine (did a fairly good job) but should've been someone much more well known. Here were all these well known legends, & popular, up & coming young guys, & then her. Seemed a little unbalanced.

The varied accents for some reason, didn't bother me in this particular movie. I prefer actors who say their lines realistically rather than wrestling an accent. Doing accents is great in movies, but if not trained perfectly it can really take you out of a movie worse than no accent. However, as is, I also understand why some viewers would be bugged by the various accents.

I thought the story was interesting & appealing, and Decaprios dramatic reactions as both characters was incredible. Upon removing the mask & his tentativeness & humility, as well as his dramatic role as the hateful & entitled young King. Quite a feat to pull off two distinctly different people, who simply look just alike.

Basically an entertaining movie night. Dont get bogged down by reality or be history minded. Just enjoy this as a fairy tale.

Leonardo DiCaprio is "The Man in the Iron Mask" and also King Louis XIV in this re-telling of the famous Dumas story. He is surrounded in a sumptuous production by a stellar cast that includes Gabriel Byrne, John Malkovich, Gerard Depardieu and Jeremy Irons. The oft-filmed plot concerns the twin brother of the cruel, selfish Louis IV who is guarded loyally by D'Artagnan. Phillipe, the twin, was taken from his mother at birth and once found by the King, imprisoned and placed in an iron mask to hide his identity. When the poverty and the uprisings become too much, Aramis (Irons), who knows of Phillipe's existence, breaks him out of prison with the help of Porthos (Depardieu) and Athos (Malkovich) with the idea of having him replace Louis at an upcoming masquerade ball. It falls to Athos, who has just lost his son Raoul in war because of Louis' lust for Raoul's fiancée, to teach Philippe how to be king in a short time. Things do not go as planned.

This tremendous cast and huge production make for absorbing viewing, different yet as entertaining as the Richard Chamberlain TV version and the Louis Hayward version in the 1930s. Here the emphasis is on the old Musketeers, which works well - Porthos who feels his age and misses the old lusts, the grieving Athos and Aramis, given an impossible job by Louis, which means that Louis must go; and, of course, D'Artagnan, fiercely loyal to his King and insisting that he can be molded into a great ruler, despite evidence to the contrary. The acting is fabulous - there really isn't a standout among the four men as they are all so good.

Leonardo DiCaprio creates two completely different characters with Louis and Philippe and does an excellent job. Though he was trending toward matinée idol/chick flick territory, he pulled himself out to take on weightier roles - though there's no doubt this film was meant to bring in the teenagers. And what's wrong with that - a classic story once in a while won't kill them.

Entertaining viewing.

I never saw this movie in the theaters (it seemed like another Leo-mania "no REAL talent" type of film), but I remember a friend recommending it to me one night about 5 years back. Since I love sword fighting movies/3 musketeer flicks, I just had to give it a try. Plus, I had seen the previews, and they looked interesting. Well, let me tell you...from the opening scene to the ending credits, I was hooked with this film! It grabbed my attention, and was just pure fun!! I don't know why this movie got such a low rating on IMDB. It may not be a "masterpiece", but it's surely a great, fun, entertaining film!

First of all, the cast is great. I mean, have you seen so many good actors in one film?? Byrnes, Depardieu, Malcovich, DiCaprio, and Irons. All such a WONDERFUL cast, with good acting. I liked Leo's duel roles too. At first I thought it would be cheesy, but Leo delivered it well! He played both roles of Louis (bad king) and Phillipe (good king) so diversely! I liked how he had you loving one king, and totally despising the other! Someone also mentioned the way Leo totally changed characters with his "eyes". THe "EYES" say a lot, and Leo nailed it. I almost had to ask myself if this was the SAME actor playing Phillipe!

The plot was good (eh...might have been predictable, but still...great), the cinematagraphy was awesome, the music was moving, the sword fighting/action was cool! I absolutely loved Gabriel Byrnes in this movie. He was so great as D'Artagnan (sp?). John Malcovich was perfect for his role of Athos too. I really felt his pain. I have both the VHS (older) and the DVD version (hey, it was on sale for 9 bucks!! lol) of The Man In The Iron Mask, and the DVD version (although not a whole lot of extras) has a nice directors commentary. It really tells the director's vision for the film and all the behind the scene info. I STILL can't believe that this movie was his FIRST film!!

Very entertaining movie. I really don't know why people dogged this movie so much. It was SOOOO much better than that "OTHER" more RECENT musketeer movie that came out called "THE Musketeer". UGghgh...what a dissapointment!

But The Man In The Iron MASK is DEFINITELY a movie worth giving a try.

In 1993 we got "The Three Musketeers," a story full of levity about three members of the royal French guard who vowed to save the king of France. In 1998 we got "The Man in the Iron Mask" which is about three musketeers who are seeking to depose the corrupt young king of France.

The story was riveting. Leonardo Di Caprio played King Louis the 14th who very much reminded me of a Joffrey Baratheon from Game of Thrones. That alone made me want to see him taken down, and taken down hard. France was at war, the people were starving, and all the young king could think to do was sleep with another man's fiance.

Aramis (Jeremy Irons), Athos (John Malkovich), and Pathos (Gerard Depardieu), three ex-musketeers, desired a revolution--bloodless if possible. They could get the king they wanted on the throne if they could switch King Louis with his wrongfully imprisoned twin brother Phillipe.

The plot was a fascinating one because there was a loathsome king and those who would oppose him. It was complicated by the king's chief guard D'artagnan (Gabriel Byrne) having an allegiance to both his king and his fellow former musketeers, Aramis, Athos, and Pathos. The acting by all was delightful and the production itself was top quality. There were very few downsides to this film.

Without it being the best movie I have ever seen, I actually liked this film. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, and I didn't get that. Instead I got a fun film, with flaws, but it was enjoyable enough.

Starting with the many good things, the cinematography is superb, as is the lavish scenery and costumes. The music is very rousing and moving, and the sword play is energetic. Also I thought the direction was fine, same with the acting. Gabriel Byrne is surprisingly good as D'Artagnan(much more suited to the part than Chris O'Donnell-the worst D'Artagnan, though I actually liked the movie- was). Even better were Jeremy Irons and Gerard Depardieu as Aramis and Porthos. John Malkovich was good too, if perhaps a little too fey to start with. Leonardo DiCaprio was somewhat uneven in his performance but he was good on the whole, personally I felt he was better as Phillippe in alternative to Louis, he never quite convinced me playing an arrogant king whereas he succeeded with Phillippe because of that spontaneous boyish charm he has.

However, the film is a little too long and the pacing is also uneven, I felt the film dragged in the middle and then it felt a tad rushed at the end. While the story is solid enough and sticks relatively faithful to the story, which is brilliant on a side note to those not familiar with it, it can get implausible with one or two soap-opera-ish qualities about it. Finally, the script does have one too many weak spots, one or two parts are a little too cheesy for my liking.

On the whole though, this is an above average and fun film. Maybe not the best for those who adore the book, but as an introduction to the story it is good enough. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The picture is a new version of Alexandre Dumas novel and is set in 17th century French court , where two twins , one evil monarch , Louis XIV (DiCaprio) of France , and the other , Phillippe , (DiCaprio in a dual role) is imprisoned in the Bastilla as an incarcerated inmate , number 6943800 , that hides his identity wearing an iron mask . Both of whom are sons of the Queen Mother Anne (Anne Parillaud) . The King falls for a beautiful girl (Judith Godreche) and while Athos (Peter Sarsgaard) leads to the summit of the dreary musketeers , thus : the brave Dartagnan (Gabriel Byrne) ; the responsible father Athos (John Malkovich) ; the joker (though with flatulence) Portos(Gerard Depardieu) and the Priest Aramis (Jeremy Irons). They join forces for the royal vengeance with the shout : ¨One for all and all for one¨ . They are planning a twisted plot , involving substitution of the villain King by his lookalike brother.

It's a good adaptation with big budget , a moving rendition of the classic tale with derring-do , intrigue , romance , action and exciting swordplay . An excellent casting and lavish production shot in France make for a fairly amusement swashbuckler . Glimmer and watchable cinematography by Peter Suschizsky who reflects stunningly French palaces (Versalles), gardens and interior-exterior scenarios . Besides , the atmospheric and spectacular music score by Nick Glennie Smith . ¨Three Musketeers¨ remade numerous times for big screen and television . Thus : 1929 silent retelling by Alan Dawn with Douglas Fairbanks , 1939 by James Whale with Louis Hayward , 1977 TV rendition with Richard Chamberlain . The film is well realized by usual screenwriter (Braveheart) and first-time director Randal Wallace . The motion picture will appeal to costume drama enthusiastic and DiCaprio fans.

I always loved the story of the musketeers and this sequel was just great. The reason I think it got such low ratings is because Leo was the star. I personally have nothing against the kid so I was able to see the film with a clear head. The twist was just thrilling. Although for the people who think the movie was a total flop, I would say they have reason to believe so. The uncanny show of bravery from the revitalized musketeers was stunning - in a confusing way. I thought that walking through bullets was to be left to the 'terminators'. Anyway, that didn't ruin the whole movie for me. That's why the Lastword 2 'The Man in the Iron Mask' awards a 7.

A short review.

This film needs to be looked at again, not as a period epic but as some good, honest entertainment. A "swashbuckler" in the true sense of the word, 'The Man In The Iron Mask' is worth a look.

If you can believe the premise that the King Louis has a secret twin you're half way to enjoying this film. Obviously the all-star cast is a huge plus. Irons, Depardieu and Malkovich are awesome as usual and Di Caprio is decent. Do not expect a believable story because you will be disappointed.

It works best as a fairy tale and is fairly enjoyable if you watch it with that frame of mind.

I almost don't know where to start in criticizing this film. Nearly everything about it--I am not exaggerating--is utterly terrible.

DiCaprio, for example, offers one of the finest examples of miscasting I have ever seen. Not for one instant does he come across as a monarch, let alone Louis XIV, one of the most adamant believers in the divine right of kings who ever lived. He has literally *no* royal presence. DiCaprio not only looks far too young (he looks like a boy who would still be at the girls are "icky" stage of life, not seducing everyone at court), he makes no attempt to speak like anything but a young, modern American male--at one point, his Louis actually finishes a sentence with "huh?"

But perhaps I should not assume that DiCaprio slipped that in on his own. Given the bargain-basement level of the rest of the dialogue, I can easily believe that writer-director Randall Wallace penned that "huh" himself. Top-notch actors like Jeremy Irons, Gabriel Byrne and John Malkovich must have been choking on their lines; Malkovich's flat performance does make it seem like he was bored out of his mind. I can only hope that the French members of the cast, including Gerard Depardieu, didn't realize just how bad their dialogue was.

My personal favorite was Byrne's statement to Queen Anne (Anne Parillaud): "I know that to love you is a crime against France, but not to love you is crime against my heart." I literally rolled off my chair laughing. That isn't even historically accurate: at that point, the Queen was a widow and no one would have cared a whit if she was sleeping with everyone in the court.

Such overblown statements and actions are rampant throughout the film. Rioting peasants toss an apple at D'Artagnan; he not only slices it with his sword, he catches it on the blade and deftly takes a bite. The scene is so ludicrously melodramatic, it must be seen to be believed.

My list of possible complaints is endless, but to wrap up with just a few: the cast members' accents are all over the place, the music overwrought and the entire film far too long. I sincerely advise all readers to avoid this movie, unless you're teaching a class on how not to make a film.

What a waste of great talent and a suspenseful, swashbuckling classic!

Aside from the passionate performance by Gabriel Byrne, the rest of the cast cakewalk through their lackluster performances. The direction, the pacing, the romance, the sword-play are all dull. We don't get involved enough into the musketeers and their motives, because the director doesn't care enough about them. He doesn't put enough heart in the action and doesn't inspire strong performances from some of the greatest actors working today.

Instead of wasting time on this boring remake, rent "The Three Musketeers" from 1973. This would demonstrate what a good time can be had from a Dumas adaption, when you get a director with a flair for high adventure.

When this film started playing in theaters in March 1998, I thought: this is going to be another overrated film that Leo Di Caprio is in...so I avoided going to see it. But I decided to rent it yesterday, since I was in the mood to watch a period film. Was I surprised! I really enjoyed watching this film. Although it did have a few flaws here and there, it is still a very worthwhile and enjoyable film. The costumes were nice, yes, but the sets were even better. The cinematography was outstanding. Who cares if it "was not true" to the Alexandre Dumas novel--film adaptions of famous novels never are true to the books. This film didn't do so well at the box office because it started playing in theaters at a time when all of the Titanic hype was still taking place. Perhaps The Man in the Iron Mask should've been released in the fall of 98--I bet more people would've gone to see it in theaters. If you haven't seen this film, rent it. It's both an enjoyable story and a visual wonder. See it at least twice!

The Man in the Iron Mask is a really good and enjoyable film with lots of great and funny moments. the idea of the film felt pretty original to me, even though it's based on the novels by Alexandre Dumas, I still felt I was watching a movie that was written for the big screen instead of based on other material. the idea of continuing the story of the three musketeers was brilliant. add the plot of replacing the king louis with his mysterious twin brother and you get a pretty good story. I didn't feel bored at any point and most of the time it went good. without dragging time of the story. the ensemble of cast is another positive thing about the film: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, Gerard Depardieu and Gabriel Byrne are all terrific and well acclaimed actors. each and every one of them does his best in this movie. totally worth watching.

I have a soft spot for this particular adaptation because it was the very first musketeer movie I ever watched.

I was 12 when I first saw it so I feel nostalgia when I rewatch it. Also I saw the movie before I read any of the books so I had no expectations.

The movie is said to only be 'inspired by' the book and makes no claims to being a faithful adaptation.

Things I loved (and still love) about the film: 1. The score/soundtrack 2. The costumes/ sets/ production quality 3. The actors- especially Gabriel Byrne as D'Artagnan and Jeremy Irons as Aramis.

Things I did not like: 1. Leonardo as the king - I liked him in Titanic but not in this film.

2. The plot with D'Artagnan's affair with the queen and the king being his son is completely invented and pretty ridiculous. I understand why they did this because without this secret 'plot twist' it's hard to understand why he would not join his friends. (Of course I didn't know this until I read the book).

3. The end battle scene where they all get shot at a close range yet not a single bullet hits anyone. It's just too over the top.

4. Some of the attempts at 'humor' - mostly with Porthos doing ridiculous things such as attempting to hang himself naked in a barn :/

Even with all those flaws i still find it more watchable than most other musketeers movies (and I've seen them all).

Back in the days of Douglas Fairbanks, people took historical drama/adventure movies much more seriously. There was a lot more reading going on and people were more familiar with Dumas' grand epic tales, such as "The Man in the Iron Mask." With this in mind, the director and producers of "Iron Mask" start their movie out slow in getting late 20th century viewers familiar with all the characters.

This was the first role for Leonardo DiCaprio post Titanic, and possibly the greatest collection of actors ever assembled to portray the Three Musketeers (Gabriel Byrne, Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, and Gerard Depardieu). Of them all, Gabriel Byrne stands out as D'Artagnan and portrays his fierce loyalty to the wicked King Louis 14 and the Queen Mother with quiet passion. He also looks great in the period costumes, long hair style and thin mustache.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays a dual role of both the wicked king and the title character. The plot focuses on a scheme by the Three Musketeers to spring the man in the Iron Mask from prison and replace the evil king with him. The implausible way they do it and install Philippe on the throne gunks up the movie a little at the midpoint. Script rewrite, anyone? On the other hand, the scene where Philippe is unmasked is one of the best in the movie.

While some moviegoers (even girls and young women still gaga over Leo from "Titanic") thought that he looked too "girly" in the movie Leo manages to get viewers to hate Louis 14 and love Philippe. And of course the queen mother knows right away and you can see the realization in her eyes (authentic French actress Anne Perillaud plays the role beautifully). Besides that, here's a little-known historical fact: the real King Louis 14 was girly. He used to pluck his facial hair and bloodlet to give his face a more vulnerable, feminine appearance.

The Man in the Iron Mask ends satisfyingly and there is even some good swashbuckling action for fans of that sort of thing. Leonardo DiCaprio's image changed radically not long after the movie, when he hooked up with Martin Scorsese for a string of tough guy roles. But he should still be proud of his performance in "Iron Mask" and it is a fine movie.

I was wary... VERY WARY... due to the fact of DiCaprio's role(s).... Anything was better than the book however.... The musketeers were incredibly well-cast, Irons making up for my original hostility for Aramis and Malkovich, Depardieu, and Byrne giving me greater reason to respect these four men of chivalry and honour. Lee D. on the other hand.... well, what can I say? He downplayed both characters, with Philippe is was immensely effective, with LouisXIV a travesty of performing. The mask was perhaps the most attractive bit of metal put together in any movie version. Besides the initial appearance, it looked the most "functional." After I swallowed my Pride and Prejudice I rented it, watched it, thought about it, then bought it. Can I say more? Accurate costuming, GREAT SCRIPT!!! A great movie for a "video-rental night."

This is a reasonable interpretation of the classic story I suppose, it just lacks a few vital elements that make a decent movie in this genre, i.e. drama, excitement, characterisation, action etc etc. DiCaprio is pretty pants as both evil King Louis and his nicer twin, although to be fair he's not really given much to do; the evil one just has to sneer a bit while the good one shambles about looking dumb all the time. The four musketeers, played by an international team of top actors, are also a bit dull, lacking both the humour that made Richard Lester's Musketeer films so much fun and the element of charisma and vitality that would convince the viewer that these are indeed the hardest men in the world. There's not much character shown by anyone, so you never really start caring about the heroes or hating the villains, and there's virtually no action until the last ten minutes or so, where a few half-arsed swordfights are thrown in as if in afterthought. Pretty lame all round really.

... that Leo DiCaprio really was a great actor, not just a pretty face. But this movie was made the year after Titanic's success probably to capitalize on just that - that DiCaprio was a pretty face that made teen girls swoon - before the Titanic spell wore off. Because he couldn't possibly act...could he??

Seeing that it is basically exploiting DiCaprio's power over teen girls, the script does not ask too much of him. He is asked to portray the two opposite personalities of twin French royal brothers in a take on the "Man in the Iron Mask" story. "Bad twin" is reigning Louis XIV who does not care about his people and cares only for pleasure and seducing pretty girls. "Good twin" is living in a prison cell with an iron mask that covers his entire face, so that nobody will know Louis XIV has a twin and thus plan a possible coup, which is exactly what happens. Complications ensue.

There is a twist that you can see coming from a mile away, and everybody overacts, including the esteemed John Malkovich. Why did he take on this project anyways? And why do high taxes mean that the crops fail? And why do the French people expect the government to feed them? Inquiring minds want to know.

At any rate, a fun look back at the fork in the road DiCaprio was about to face in his acting career, just now as he is starring in a film about Hollywood and American culture facing a "fork in the road" - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

What a great dungeon. I'd like to make my home there when I wasn't snugly ensconced in the royal palace with it's secret passages and hidden chambers. This film rivaled the one made in the 70's, but I don't think it was done any better....if memory serves. Great props and costumes made me feel as though I was really right there in 17th century Paris. Superb acting and a well written script made the flavor of this adventure even tastier. I was all for this one.

Who the heck is Randall Wallace if not one of the greatest comic filmmakers of our time who apparently does not know where his true talent lies? This film offers a prime example of the man's inborn grasp of gut-wrenching hilarity dolled up as piously dull and historically ignorant entertainment. In other words for those willing to forget the serious intent of the movie it is a guaranteed laugh riot from the start to finish. This absurd remake reveals Mr. Wallace is not only a multi-talent-less director, writer, and producer, but he is also someone with an uncanny knack for transforming mature but nonetheless top talents –– Gerard Depardieu, Gabriel Byrne, Jeremy Irons and John Malkovich in this case –– into automaton-like hacks. To be fair, these otherwise fine actors must have been paid handsomely before they agreed to take part in such drivel even as they appear to be thumbing their noses at this inane production by reading their ridiculous lines ice cold as if off of a teleprompter. In truth the actors seem to be desperately holding back either tears of hilarity or tears of abject humiliation. Still, the real question here is this: does this man even know what a ridiculous hoot he has given birth to? The answer is: certainly not. In sum, you should spare yourself if at all possible. However, if you must indulge, then the best thing to do is to watch this defectively fitted costumed comedy with Mr. Wallace's senseless "commentary" turned on as background sound effect. I promise instant spasms of watery-eyed laughter as he piously defends the serious intent of his efforts. In all honestly, the clearest assessment of Mr. Wallace's version of the Man in the Iron Mask is best summarized early on in the film by the loud and resounding flatulence hilariously delivered by Mr. Depardieu's character. If only the rest of the film lived up to that exceptional moment of innovation.