Rating: 
Summary: Aughh. Urgh. Eek. Blech.
Review: Horrific acting on almost everyone's part (including Monsieur Leonardo's). The dancing was devised in a nightmare sequence, no? What was with the Irish folk music at the end? And...shudder...what happened to the historical accuracy? Louis 14th's reign was anything but peaceful...the man in the iron mask was, in reality, probably a bastard son of his (and it would have been just as interesting that way, too--c'mon Hollywood, have some creativity). Louis' hair was not blonde. (Was that a wig or what? it didn't look like one to me.) And, I regret to repeat this again (but I mustmustmust): the dancing was hideous. And another thing... "Louis, I'm your daddy!" Eeeek. "I have no right to the throne..." Did he say that? No. "Oh. Oh, really? Why, my mother really is a little...dishonest, wouldn't you say? Poor Papa--err, you get it." French monarchs' births were (don't flinch) practically public, anyway; I'm certain some noble would have gone: "Jesus Christ--TWO CHILDREN." Alexander Dumas could pull it off. Hollywood couldn't. Did I miss something? Hmmmm. Maybe. Do I care? No.
Rating: 
Summary: Probably Not One Of Leonardo DiCaprio's Best Films. . . .
Review: I liked this movie, I just kind of don't really like Leo. I mean, Leo's OK, but he's not my favorite person in the whole world. I would have kinda prefered if they had Matt Damon do Leo's part-err-parts, instead. It could have been better, it could have been improved. But I think all movies could be improved-no movie's "perfect" or "the best". There's just no such thing, sorry to say that but it's the truth. I'm sure most people would agree with me that "The Man In The Iron Mask" is not the best movie in the world and it could be improved. Oh well, I guess I'm just not a huge Leo fan. But the strangest thing is that I really loved "Titanic", even though Leo was in it. What I like about both movies is that both movies takes place somewhere in history. I have to admit that I like movies like that. I'd recommend both movies to people-but I guess I'd have to recommend "Titanic" more. "Titanic" was better. I don't know why-it just was. But I shouldn't be judging that. Why don't you go out and rent both movies-then see which one you like more. After all, it is up to you!
Rating: 
Summary: This has got to be the greatest movie of all time
Review: Special note for the viewer from new zealand: He was Louie the fourteenth, not Louie the third. I love this movie. It is by far Leo DiCaprio's best movie. I saw Titanic and What's Eating Gilbert Grape and Marvin's Room, all wonderfully done, but they just can't compare to this. In case any of you are airheads who think all twelve year old girls have their heads on backwards and love Leo DiCaprio are reading this, I'm setting the record straight. I can be a fan of his and not think he's 'adorable'. Any number of adult DiCaprio fans will agree with me, my dad included. But it is the best movie I think I've ever seen. I wish I owned it. Unfortunatly, I don't. But I might soon if I can't stand not seeing it a few more times. Anyway, the bottom line is, see this movie and cry over it, then reccomend it to a friend.
Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful entertainment and acting
Review: When I first saw this video, I was in the fortunate position of having never seen ANY of the actors' previous performances. I use 'fortunate' only in the sense that it apparently allowed me to view it without some preconceived idea of what they should be like. Now, yes, I had heard about DiCaprio's existence, and I'd heard the names (only their names) of most of the actors playing musketeers. But that's all. So I think this allows me to give a more unbiased review than people who have seen these actors before in other things. First, a review of the acting: All of the musketeers get 5 stars (out of 5). Yes, all, including Malkovich. I had no idea until after I saw this that he usually plays very nasty people, so I didn't already have my mind made up that that's all he could do. And I thought he did such a good job, in fact, that I made sure I saw several more of his films. That doesn't happen to me often. Just watch the last scene, where he's walking away and Philippe calls him back. He doesn't even have a line, but he's wonderful. The only problem I had with him (which had nothing to do with his acting) was that I kept staring at his mouth whenever he said anything because his teeth looked so bad. Since I saw him in other things after this where nothing was wrong with his teeth, except being crooked, I have to think the lighting in this movie does him an injustice. Maybe they were just trying to make him look older, since Athos is the oldest musketeer. Now, sorry for spending so much time on just one actor, but I wanted to balance the reviews below this that don't like him. Irons and Depardieu were also very good, and if you can, after the first time you see it, pick only one of the musketeers and watch only him every time he's on screen (do it four times, why not?). There are things you'll pick up you wouldn't otherwise that they all put into their characterizations. Depardieu is especially good at this. Byrne was the only one whose name I hadn't heard of before, but he was equally as good as the others. He and Malkovich have the most material to work with for their characterizations. DiCaprio was all right. I can't rave about him, but I suspect this is more the fault of the script, and possibly the direction, than it is his fault. Philippe did not seem as traumatized about spending six years in an iron mask as I thought he should be, for instance. But otherwise, he was perfectly convincing in both roles, and I was never confused about which was which even when they switched clothes. Now, about their various accents: They have been criticized, here and by professional reviewers, for not all adopting either a 'standard' English accent (whatever that is - seems like it would take a committee and a couple hundred years to agree to anything) or for speaking in French accents. Well, here is the reality - the musketeers and the king (the characters) are French, yes. The movie, however, was made in English. So you have to use your imagination to imagine that the CHARACTERS are really speaking French although the ACTORS are speaking English. In that light, it shouldn't matter what dialect of English they use so long as they can be understood by all English speakers. Personally the variety of accents didn't distract me at all; in fact I thought it was a delight to listen to. (I do have to add that I read more than one professional review which claimed DiCaprio's French accent came and went. I thought it proved critics don't pay attention to the films they review, since DiCaprio's French accent never comes at all - he sounds American throughout). Now, for the other aspects of the movie: The script was a wonderful adaptation (not a close one; but none of the iron mask films has been close or people would've thrown rocks at the screen). Probably I haven't seen ALL the adaptations, but this is the only one I know of that includes all the musketeers in major roles. And, Wallace managed to preserve very well the personalities of the musketeers (and Philippe, if not Louis) as Dumas wrote them. But there were some problems with it. Foremost was his use of somewhat stilted speech, supposedly for the reason that contractions hadn't been invented yet in the 1600s. This got distracting - and my opinion about this is the same as my opinion on accents: The audience wants to be entertained, by knowing what the characters think and feel. They (the audience) isn't there for a history or elocution lesson. The other major problem was in the occasional use of corny cliches, like "I wear the mask, it does not wear me." And, Wallace seemed to think Louis had to be painted in an entirely bad light - he has no redeeming characteristics at all. Sets and costumes - some of the sets (notably of the river beneath the palace) looked like obvious soundstages. Also, the streets of Paris looked way too clean, especially in the riot scene. Wigs were mixed. DiCaprio's and Depardieu's looked rather fake. The others looked okay. I rather enjoyed the direction. Wallace appears determined to set up the storyboard scenes so obviously I can tell which views appeared on the storyboards, but this may just be his style. It didn't really bother me. And the ending is just so spectacular I was overwhelmed. One professional reviewer I read said the film was worth the price of the ticket for the ending alone. I have to agree.
Rating:
Summary: captivating
Review: This was without a doubt one of the best movies I have ever seen. Leo was a bit out of place in 17th century France, but everyone else was perfect, especially Gabriel Byrne as D'Artagnan. I think Gabriel did a wonderful job of conveying his character's angst and conflict. I was really upset when he and Athos became enemies after Athos's son was killed. John Malkovich was also great as Athos, both grieving and vengeful. I thought the bond he formed with the good twin, Phillippe, was touching. Jeremy Irons seemed a little too detached as Aramis, but he still did a good job and was a perfect straight man for Gerard Depardieu, who was wonderfully crude and disgusting as Porthos.
Rating:
Summary: A nearly great movie.
Review: I had not considered seeing this movie mainly because I am not a Leo fan. However I caught it on cable and was stunned. I bought myself a copy the next day. My 16 year old son thinks I am crazy because I have watched it 10 times in 2 weeks.Leo did well, but Gabriel Byrne was outstanding. I especially love the last thirty minutes.
Rating:
Summary: A Potentially Great Cast Flounders
Review: The would-be amazingly intense ensemble cast of Byrne, Malcovich and Irons is under-used in the film! And as for DiCaprio, he was brave to take on the daunting task of the dual role -- he carries it off better than I expected though. I found myself wondering: was the word "Huh?" really around back then? of all the bare behinds to see, why his? did Gerard really have to turn it into "Grumpy Old Musketeers"? ;-) You'd be better off seeing this cast in their other films... See DiCaprio's inspired performance in the touching "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?". You have no idea...how good Jeremy Irons is at being bad until you've seen "Reversal of Fortune". You haven't witnessed John Malcovich in all his glory until you've seen his deliciously devilish performance in "Dangerous Liaisons"! Oui! Gerard Depardieu's funny Frenchman-ness works for him as he charms his way through "Green Card". And, finally, Gabriel Byrne shines as a classy criminal in "The Usual Suspects," a film with one of the best plot twists I've ever seen! Check out these other titles if you want to see these great actors at their best!!!!
Rating:
Summary: I loved DiCaprio in it so much.
Review: I think Randall Wallace was perfect when he decided to choose Leonardo DiCaprio as Louis and Phillipe. Leo was absolutely brillant, and the movie was excellent. I recommened it to my father. My dad usually dosen't like those types of movies, but when I asked him how he liked it he said it was a great story, and it was an excellent movie. I recommend it to everyone on the internet, and everywhere else. I also would like to add that Tracey S. is the biggest Leonardo DiCaprio fan in the world. Leonardo DiCaprio was perfectly picked for this role. I loved Leo in it.
Rating:
Summary: terrific movie
Review: I like this movie, one of my best. you should watch this movie atleast twice. Some people are not interested because they say the actors were weak, but for me, it isn`t, and a very good plot. Most people should watch this. I heard that many people in Asia like this movie!
Rating:
Summary: not great, but good enough
Review: The movie it self has a wonderful plot and the story is well told with one exception. Leonardo Dicaprio's baby faced apperance makes it hard to belive he could starve a fly much less an entire country. The rest of the muskateers put on a great show especially Jeremy Irons. Over all the film is pretty good but far from great.
|
